View Full Version : Countdown to President Romney's Inauguration
First Poll in the Countdown has Romney Edging Out Obama as Approval for the President Drops
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/12/fox-news-poll-romney-edges-obama-as-approval-president-drops/
Republican Mitt Romney holds a slim edge over President Obama in a head-to-head matchup, a Fox News poll released Thursday shows. In addition, the poll finds the president’s job rating has dropped to its lowest point of the year.
In a presidential matchup, Romney tops Obama by 46-44 percent if the election were today.
As with every Romney-Obama matchup in the past six months, the race is so tight that it is within the poll’s margin of sampling error. This, however, is only the second time the Fox News poll shows Romney on top. The first time was November 2011, when he was also up by 2 percentage points.
Click here for full poll results.
The poll was conducted Monday through Wednesday. On Tuesday, Rick Santorum suspended his presidential bid -- giving Romney a clear path to the Republican nomination.
More Republicans (42 percent) than Democrats (32 percent) or independents (34 percent) say they are “extremely” interested in the upcoming presidential election.
Even so, the strength of party support in the matchup is dead even: 85 percent of Democrats back Obama and 85 percent of Republican back Romney.
Among the highly sought after group of independents, the poll found 43 percent back Romney and 37 percent Obama. Nearly one in four independent voters (21 percent) is undecided or won’t vote for either of the major party candidates. Last month, independents split evenly between Obama and Romney at 40 percent each. In February, Romney had a 9-point advantage.
The poll shows the gender gap may not solely be a problem for the Republican candidate. Women are more likely to back Obama (by 49-41 percent), while men are even more likely to give their support to Romney (by 52-38 percent). The 2008 Fox News national exit poll showed women voted for Obama over Republican John McCain by 13 percentage points (56-43 percent). Historically, exit poll results show women have consistently backed the Democrat over the Republican in presidential elections.
Obama’s overall job approval rating stands at 42 percent, down from 47 percent last month. The drop comes mainly from Democrats: 80 percent approve now, down from 86 percent in March. A 51 percent majority of voters disapproves of the job Obama is doing.
News of a stalled economic recovery has likely contributed to the decline in the president’s approval. The disappointing employment report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics on Friday and the recent stock market losses both received significant news coverage in the last week. The stock market suffered its worst losses of the year on Tuesday.
The poll shows these economic issues will continue to be a challenge for Obama.
More voters think Obama’s policies have hurt (37 percent) rather than helped the economy (31 percent). Three in 10 say his policies haven’t made much a difference either way (31 percent).
By more than two-to-one voters say the spending is out of control and the country must take action to reduce the national debt.
Meanwhile, 29 percent of voters say they are “scared” about the country’s financial future and another 49 percent are “concerned, but not scared.” Less than one voter in five feels “confident” (18 percent) and 4 percent are “enthusiastic.” Current views are similar to those from one year ago.
Just under half of Republicans -- 46 percent -- are scared about the future. That’s about three times the number of Democrats who say the same (14 percent). Thirty-one percent of independents are scared.
Most Americans -- 67 percent -- are unhappy with the direction of the country. About a third of voters (32 percent) say they are satisfied with the way things are going today. That’s little improvement from the 30 percent who felt that way a year ago (April 2011) and down a couple notches from two years ago (35 percent). This question is an important indication of voters’ mood. If the national mood is either positive or moving in a positive direction, that’s seen as good news for the incumbent president.
By a 7-point margin, more voters think Romney has the best experience to fix the economy (46-39 percent). Romney’s advantage widens over Obama to 41-28 percent among independents. And that advantage on handling the economy is a big boost for a candidate when over half of voters (53 percent) say the economy will be “extremely” important to their vote for president.
Not surprisingly, more voters prioritize the economy than any other issue tested. Just under half of voters say the federal budget deficit (45 percent) and health care (44 percent) will be “extremely” important in their presidential vote decision.
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. The two candidates are essentially tied among people who say health care is extremely important.
The poll also asks voters about some personal characteristics of the president and the presumed Republican nominee.
By a 9-point margin, voters are more likely to say Obama is “smarter,” than Romney, and by 7 points Obama is seen as “more optimistic.”
Finally, Obama has a 2-point edge when voters are asked which candidate is more likely “to tell you the truth.” Nearly one voter in five says “neither” will be honest (18 percent).
The Fox News poll is based on land-line and cell phone interviews with 910 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and is conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from April 9 to April 11. For the total sample, it has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points
Snip
Since the onus is on Obama to convince the American electorate that he deserves another shot, I think it's safe to say Romney's best bet is hammer him hard on his record. But he better be ready to feel the wrath of Chicago-style politics. If he can't overcome that....well.....:rolleyes:
Since the onus is on Obama to convince the American electorate that he deserves another shot, I think it's safe to say Romney's best bet is hammer him hard on his record. But he better be ready to feel the wrath of Chicago-style politics. If he can't overcome that....well.....:rolleyes:
Agreed, but I think it's an unscrupulous, biased news media that must be overcome in order to make the general voting public aware that Chicago-style bullshit is in play.
Romney'll have to get people to look through a smokescreen as deep and wide as has ever been used to divert people's attention away from the truth.
Obama would really have to have both mitts on the dog's tail to shake him hard enough for 67% percent of the pollees to reverse their collective conclusion that they don't like what's happening with the Country.
In a fair election, I smell a landslide win for Romney based on disgust with the status quo.
Since the onus is on Obama to convince the American electorate that he deserves another shot, I think it's safe to say Romney's best bet is hammer him hard on his record. This analysis overlooks the ability of a modern incumbent president to use the bully pulpit to frame the narrative of his first term. For example, in 1916, President Wilson's campaign for re-election centered around the failures of previous Republican policies as well as the fact that he'd kept America out of the Great War. In 1984, President Reagan framed his campaign as a referendum on the Carter presidency. In 2004, Bush the Younger made a specific, but coded, reference to the Carter administration.
So while Governor Romney might prefer to address the current president's record, sticking to that plan will hardly be "safe" if the incumbent uses the bully pulpit to change the narrative and Romney does not adjust his approach.
In 1984, President Reagan framed his campaign as a referendum on the Carter presidency.
So while Governor Romney might prefer to address the current president's record, sticking to that plan will hardly be "safe" if the incumbent uses the bully pulpit to change the narrative and Romney does not adjust his approach.
This is more like Reagan v. Carter 1980.
This analysis overlooks the ability of a modern incumbent president to use the bully pulpit to frame the narrative of his first term. For example, in 1916, President Wilson's campaign for re-election centered around the failures of previous Republican policies as well as the fact that he'd kept America out of the Great War. In 1984, President Reagan framed his campaign as a referendum on the Carter presidency. In 2004, Bush the Younger made a specific, but coded, reference to the Carter administration.
So while Governor Romney might prefer to address the current president's record, sticking to that plan will hardly be "safe" if the incumbent uses the bully pulpit to change the narrative and Romney does not adjust his approach.
I most certainly agree that Romney cannot simply point the finger at the current administration. Of course he has to win over and energize the conservative base of the GOP while reaching out to independents and swing voters. Yet, for many voters in this election season, it is going to be a denounciation of the policies of the Obama administration, instead of being fond of Romney (which a considerable amount of conservatives seem not to be). I think it's feasible to argue that that is a major reason why Nixon was elected in '68....because the majority of the country had grown to despise the LBJ-Hubert Humphrey government, and not necessarily because they preferred the former Vice President. And one could argue the same for Carter in '76 because of the lingering disgust over Watergate and Ford's pardon of Nixon.
I most certainly agree that Romney cannot simply point the finger at the current administration. Of course he has to win over and energize the conservative base of the GOP while reaching out to independents and swing voters. Yet, for many voters in this election season, it is going to be a denounciation of the policies of the Obama administration, instead of being fond of Romney (which a considerable amount of conservatives seem not to be). I think it's feasible to argue that that is a major reason why Nixon was elected in '68....because the majority of the country had grown to despise the LBJ-Hubert Humphrey government, and not necessarily because they preferred the former Vice President. And one could argue the same for Carter in '76 because of the lingering disgust over Watergate and Ford's pardon of Nixon.
Yep. Anybody but Obama is the prevailing thought, and this election, with regard to popularity, could be even more lopsided than Reagan/Carter.
Entire post.What evidence that establishes the "feasibility" of your position that single issues decided the 1968 and 1976 presidential elections?
If you're correct about 1968, then what explains the split of the popular vote between the Democrats and the Republicans in the presidential election or Democratic Party's continued hold on both houses of Congress or the polling data that indicate many Americans were more concerned with specific issues than their personal views of the "government"?
If your argument regarding the 1976 presidential election is sustainable, then what accounts for the wide ranging discussions between the Ford and Carter camps over issues of foreign and domestic policy?* What about Ford's gaffe during the presidential debate of 6 October 1976?
If Watergate was the decisive issue in 1976, then why did Carter himself did not make an issue of Watergate when it mattered most--during the presidential debate of 22 October 1976? That is, why did Governor Carter bother to focus on the issues if he could have just kept saying "Watergate / Nixon" from 1974 onward?)
_________________________________________________
* For example, see The Presidential Campaign, 1976 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1978). This collection of documents is available at the Young Library, fifth floor, U.S. government publications. The call number is Y 4.H 81/3:P 92/2/976/v.1-3.
What evidence that establishes the "feasibility" of your position that single issues decided the 1968 and 1976 presidential elections?
If you're correct about 1968, then what explains the split of the popular vote between the Democrats and the Republicans in the presidential election or Democratic Party's continued hold on both houses of Congress or the polling data that indicate many Americans were more concerned with specific issues than their personal views of the "government?
If your argument regarding the 1976 presidential election is sustainable, then what accounts for the wide ranging discussions between the Ford and Carter camps over issues of foreign and domestic policy?* What about Ford's gaffe during the presidential debate of 6 October 1976?
If Watergate was the decisive issue in 1976, then why did Carter himself did not make an issue of Watergate when it mattered most--during the presidential debate of 22 October 1976? That is, why did Governor Carter bother to focus on the issues if he could have just kept saying "Watergate / Nixon" from 1974 onward?)
_________________________________________________
* For example, see The Presidential Campaign, 1976 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1978). This collection of documents is available at the Young Library, fifth floor, U.S. government publications. The call number is Y 4.H 81/3:P 92/2/976/v.1-3.
There comes a time in someone's life when it is necessary for them to admit that they have been bested, whether in competition, debate, or general knowledge. For me, that time has come ;). I'd love to read more on these elections as they are a spellbinding part of American history with implications that are very much around today. Thank you for the reference!
greenberetTFS
04-13-2012, 06:01
Agreed, but I think it's an unscrupulous, biased news media that must be overcome in order to make the general voting public aware that Chicago-style bullshit is in play.
Romney'll have to get people to look through a smokescreen as deep and wide as has ever been used to divert people's attention away from the truth.
Obama would really have to have both mitts on the dog's tail to shake him hard enough for 67% percent of the pollees to reverse their collective conclusion that they don't like what's happening with the Country.
In a fair election, I smell a landslide win for Romney based on disgust with the status quo.
Dusty
HERE IS ALL I WANT:
Obama: Gone!,Borders: Closed!,Congress:Obey its own laws,Language: English only,Culture:Constitution, and the Bill of Rights! Drug Free: Mandatory Drug Screening before Welfare!,NO freebies to:Non-Citizens,Photo Id for all voters!....;)
We the people are coming!........... :mad: :mad:
Big Teddy :munchin
Dusty
HERE IS ALL I WANT:
Obama: Gone!,Borders: Closed!,Congress:Obey its own laws,Language: English only,Culture:Constitution, and the Bill of Rights! Drug Free: Mandatory Drug Screening before Welfare!,NO freebies to:Non-Citizens,Photo Id for all voters!....;)
We the people are coming!...........
Big Teddy
Big Teddy, you need a "Don't Tread on Me" tat. ;)
ZonieDiver
04-13-2012, 12:38
I would have voted for RMN in '68, had I been 21. He had a "secret plan" for getting us out of Viet Nam! \
I voted for McGovern in '72 because he had an enlisted man running on his ticket as VP candidate... Sgt Shriver! :D
People vote for reasons that are not always apparent, or logical, to someone else. It usually is to them.
People vote for reasons that are not always apparent, or logical, to someone else. It usually is to them.
Hopefully, no matter the reason, the electorate will vote to get us out of the mess we are in with the current administration.
It would be nice if the folks recognized the complete incompetence of the current administration - but at this point - some of us will take a vote against Obama for less apparent reasons.
IMO, there are so many sound reasons to vote against Obama - a couple of potential Supreme Court nominations are not the least of those reasons !
Roll on November !
Cake_14N
04-13-2012, 14:10
HERE IS ALL I WANT:
Obama: Gone!,Borders: Closed!,Congress:Obey its own laws,Language: English only,Culture:Constitution, and the Bill of Rights! Drug Free: Mandatory Drug Screening before Welfare!,NO freebies to:Non-Citizens,Photo Id for all voters!....;)
We the people are coming!........... :mad: :mad:
Big Teddy :munchin
My vote: Oboma 0 Big Teddy: 1
BIG TEDDY FOR PRES!!!!!
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-mitt-romney-warns-nra-against-an-unrestrained-secondterm-obama-20120413,0,250411.story
Mitt Romney drew a warm reception from the National Rifle Assn. on Friday as he attacked President Obama for “employing every imaginable ruse and ploy” to restrict gun rights, which Romney pledged not to do if elected in November.
Although gun control groups have complained that Obama has done little to support their cause, Romney took a page from the NRA leadership, which has been saying that the president is waiting for a second term to crack down on firearms. He warned that Obama would “remake” the Supreme Court in a second term, threatening constitutional freedoms.
“In a second term, he would be unrestrained by the demands of re-election,” Romney told a crowd estimated at 6,000 in the cavernous Edward Jones Dome. “As he told the Russian president last month when he thought no one else was listening, after a re-election he’ll have a lot more, quote, 'flexibility' to do what he wants. I’m not exactly sure what he meant by that, but looking at his first three years, I have a very good idea.”
Referring specifically to the right to bear arms, Romney said: “If we are going to safeguard our 2nd Amendment, it is time to elect a president who will defend the rights President Obama ignores or minimizes. I will.”
Romney’s speech came at the NRA’s Leadership Forum, which always draws top conservative speakers. Also expected to speak Friday were three of Romney’s former rivals for the GOP nomination, former Sen. Rick Santorum, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Texas Gov. Rick Perry, as well as a panoply of other Republican stars, including House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Sens. Chuck Grassley and Roy Blunt, and Rep. Darrell Issa.
Most of the other speakers could claim a friendlier history with the NRA than Romney, who supported strict gun control measures as governor of Massachusetts and once said he didn’t “line up” with the gun rights group. But the NRA leadership has thrown its weight behind Romney, whom it sees as preferable to Obama, and Romney received several standing ovations during his speech.
Although Obama has not been responsible for any notable gun control measures, the organization has been sharply critical of some of his appointments, especially that of Eric Holder as attorney general.
Before Romney spoke, the NRA’s legislative director, Chris Cox, showed a video clip that he said depicted a Holder speech from 1995. In it, the future attorney general spoke about the need to "really brainwash people to think about guns in a vastly different way."
"So let's state this in very clear terms,” Cox said. “President Obama needs to fire Eric Holder, and in November, we need to fire the president."
Even before Romney’s speech, the Obama campaign hit back with a statement attacking the presumptive GOP nominee, along with a hefty file of news clippings intended to show that he had a checkered history on gun rights.
“The president's record makes clear the he supports and respects the 2nd amendment, and we'll fight back against any attempts to mislead voters,” said campaign press secretary Ben LaBolt. “Mitt Romney is going to have difficulty explaining why he quadrupled fees on gun owners in Massachusetts then lied about being a lifelong hunter in an act of shameless pandering. That varmint won't hunt.”
Outside the convention hall, a half-dozen or so soggy union-affiliated demonstrators stood in the rain holding signs that said: “Romney: 100% out of touch.”
“We’re basically here to expose Romney as a flip-flopper with the NRA,” said Ed McNees, president of UAW Local 282 in St. Louis. “In ’94, he was for the Brady bill and against assault weapons … and now he’s a newly found supporter of the NRA.”
With McNees was Steve Johnson, a local Teamsters organizer, who said Romney “doesn’t look like anybody who hangs out at any of the places I might hunt.” Leaders of the UAW and the Teamsters have pledged full support to Obama in the 2012 campaign, although both McNees and Johnson insisted that they were there as gun enthusiasts, not Obama supporters.
Snip
From the cited article...righhhhtttt...I don't know what's more ludicrous...the following quote from Ben LaBolt regarding Obama and the 2A or the other thread that suggests Big Sis might go down...:eek: ;)
“The president's record makes clear the he supports and respects the 2nd amendment...” said campaign press secretary Ben LaBolt.
from the horse's mouth...
"They're doing a pretty good job ... as Obama has said, 'under the radar.'
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/28/obama-administration-eyeing-gun-control-radar-groups-warn/
I think Big Teddy pretty well summed it up!! And I have my fingers crossed for that landslide Dusty predicts. Obama by his own words and deeds have aligned the stars for his defeat, but if Romney and the Republicans run as if they are afraid of offending anyone and everyone like the last presidential hopeful in 2008 then we are in for another four years of God knows what.
Dozer523
04-14-2012, 09:08
There comes a time in someone's life when it is necessary for them to admit that they have been bested, whether in competition, debate, or general knowledge. !Not around here it doesn't. That's when we get started.
I now return you to your ongoing discussion. ;)
Not around here it doesn't. That's when we get started.
lol Case in point. ;)
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/romney-tells-obama-to-start-packing-in-abc-news-exclusive-interview/
greenberetTFS
04-17-2012, 08:18
I would have voted for RMN in '68, had I been 21. He had a "secret plan" for getting us out of Viet Nam! \
I voted for McGovern in '72 because he had an enlisted man running on his ticket as VP candidate... Sgt Shriver! :D
People vote for reasons that are not always apparent, or logical, to someone else. It usually is to them.
Zonie
I remember when Senator Goldwater ran for Pres.in 1964,the libs said if we vote for him we'll have an escalation of the war in Vietnam,and I did and they were right we did have an escalation..........:rolleyes::eek:
Big Teddy :munchin
If Romney doesn't work out I'll vote for Big Teddy. A lot of people with knowledge of the issues support Obama, but anyone with actual experience on the issues is against him and his policies that seem to be coming straight from a 1950s Moscow.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150743/Obama-Romney.aspx
I want Mitt to win just as much as any Republican. But if anyone thinks this old, stiff out of touch white as can be guy is going to beat Obama. Your living in a fantasy world. This isn't the same America as ten years ago. The Guy is having an elevator put in his house in order to bring his car into his living room. So he doesn't have to walk out side. Thats the republican candidate. Just sad.
I want Mitt to win just as much as any Republican. But if anyone thinks this old, stiff out of touch white as can be guy is going to beat Obama. Your living in a fantasy world. This isn't the same America as ten years ago. The Guy is having an elevator put in his house in order to bring his car into his living room. So he doesn't have to walk out side. Thats the republican candidate. Just sad.
Case of beer says Romney wins.
I want Mitt to win just as much as any Republican. But if anyone thinks this old, stiff out of touch white as can be guy is going to beat Obama. Your living in a fantasy world. This isn't the same America as ten years ago. The Guy is having an elevator put in his house in order to bring his car into his living room. So he doesn't have to walk out side. Thats the republican candidate. Just sad.
And the problem with that is??? It used to be that if we saw someone like that, we would say "wow, someday, if I work hard enough, maybe I can have an elevator in my house." Now it is"do you see that f*&ing guy. Why does he get an elevator in his house and I don't have one? He must have taken something from me so that he could be better off"
That is the whole problem with this country. Everyone thinks the size of the pie stays the same, therefore if you have more, I must have less. Instead of the pie changes size, and even though you have a bigger piece, because the pie is bigger, so do I.
Class warfare at it's best. Not saying you believe that, but a majority of people now adays see it that way. Just the other day I was at a family dinner and my cousin was giving me shit about my mercedes, and how I think I am better than him. Well jackass, I have 2 masters degrees, and have steadily been climbing the ladder for 18 years. You on the other hand barely have a BA, smoke pot most of the day, and took a dead end job because it was easy. He thinks because I have it good, it is my fault he isn't as well off.
Tough Shit.
The Guy is having an elevator put in his house in order to bring his car into his living room.
Do you know this for a fact, K.? Living in Hermosa Beach, I had several neighbors that had "elevators" for their cars. Parking is VERY tight and restricted in beach areas. It's easier (and potentially cheaper) to just hoist (the proper term) one vehicle over the other in the garage.
Pat
Case of beer says Romney wins.
Hope i'm sending beer via UPS in NOV. Any takers on Newt out there.......:D
greenberetTFS
04-18-2012, 06:38
Yep. Anybody but Obama is the prevailing thought, and this election, with regard to popularity, could be even more lopsided than Reagan/Carter.
OK,Dusty I'll stop calling Romney "Casper Milk Toast" and jump on supporting him 100% from now on...........;););)
Big Teddy :munchin
Hope i'm sending beer via UPS in NOV. Any takers on Newt out there.......:D
I hope so, too. When I get the case from you for the Romney win, I'll send it to the guy I owe for the Gingrich no-go. :D
greenberetTFS
04-18-2012, 06:41
Case of beer says Romney wins.
Don't forget my bottle of Jameson.........;):D
Big Teddy :munchin
OK,Dusty I'll stop calling Romney "Casper Milk Toast" and jump on supporting him 100% from now on...........;)
Big Teddy :munchin
ABO, Bro. A.B.O. :lifter
I received an email from a friend in MA. He knows that I do not care for Romney. The gist of the email was to provide some insight into Romney, as a person.
I am not posting the email - but instead did a bit of online research at the usual sources to give the story a sanity check.
Since others express displeasure with our choice this November election - I include the following links for each to arrive at their own conclusions.
I hope this helps.
TZ
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/30/chain-email/viral-internet-story-says-mitt-romney-helped-locat/
http://www.snopes.com/politics/romney/search.asp
I received an email from a friend in MA. He knows that I do not care for Romney. The gist of the email was to provide some insight into Romney, as a person.
I am not posting the email - but instead did a bit of online research at the usual sources to give the story a sanity check.
Since others express displeasure with our choice this November election - I include the following links for each to arrive at their own conclusions.
I hope this helps.
TZ
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/30/chain-email/viral-internet-story-says-mitt-romney-helped-locat/
http://www.snopes.com/politics/romney/search.asp
Bro, I'd take Al Franken right now.
Bro, I'd take Al Franken right now.
Now, Bro, don't get all crazy on us...ZD has already suggested in another thread that with respect to Hillary...he'd go all Yoda and...hit it he would. :eek: Love ya ZD and even apologized for my tone in another thread because you merely suggested that a member had been roughed up a bit. But, Hillary...not enough beer in The world ! :D
But, in all seriousness, I sure hear ya Dusty loud and clear.
When you look at the two men running for office there really is no choice.
Romney, for all his weaknesses, is a proven problem solver who loves this country and the opportunities it has provided him and his family. The other guy...not so much.
ABO.
And the problem with that is??? MOO, the problem is that it reflects poor judgement on Romney's part. Yes, it is his house and it is his money but the man is running to be the president. How is he going to convince working class Americans that he can relate to their issues when he appears to go out of his way to make it clear that his everyday life is beyond the imagination of most Americans?Do you know this for a fact, K.? Living in Hermosa Beach, I had several neighbors that had "elevators" for their cars. Parking is VERY tight and restricted in beach areas. It's easier (and potentially cheaper) to just hoist (the proper term) one vehicle over the other in the garage.
PatYour point is well made. However, how does Romney's solution help/hurt his ability to portray himself as a man who can lead ALL Americans? If the elevator is about parking in La Jolla, what does it say about his approach to public policy issues that he wants to solve an endemic problem by throwing private money at it as opposed to working for a solution that works to the benefit of his neighbors and his community?
And the problem with that is??? It used to be that if we saw someone like that, we would say "wow, someday, if I work hard enough, maybe I can have an elevator in my house." Now it is"do you see that f*&ing guy. Why does he get an elevator in his house and I don't have one? He must have taken something from me so that he could be better off"
That is the whole problem with this country. Everyone thinks the size of the pie stays the same, therefore if you have more, I must have less. Instead of the pie changes size, and even though you have a bigger piece, because the pie is bigger, so do I.
Class warfare at it's best. Not saying you believe that, but a majority of people now adays see it that way. Just the other day I was at a family dinner and my cousin was giving me shit about my mercedes, and how I think I am better than him. Well jackass, I have 2 masters degrees, and have steadily been climbing the ladder for 18 years. You on the other hand barely have a BA, smoke pot most of the day, and took a dead end job because it was easy. He thinks because I have it good, it is my fault he isn't as well off.
Tough Shit.
I can't believe my own cousin outed me on PS.com:D
Don't forget my bottle of Jameson.........;):D
Big Teddy :munchin
:cool:
greenberetTFS
04-18-2012, 17:18
Tough Shit.
You tell them afchic,don't take any crap from anyone.........;) :D
Big Teddy :munchin
I can't believe my own cousin outed me on PS.com:D
Somehow I think you are 100 times the man my cousin is;)
TrapLine
04-19-2012, 11:54
Bro, I'd take Al Franken right now.
As a Minnesotan, all I can say is, "Please do.":D I don't even care where you take him;).
Red Flag 1
04-19-2012, 15:13
Hope i'm sending beer via UPS in NOV. Any takers on Newt out there.......:D
I would love to see debates between obama and Newt. I just don't see it happening in a debate setting. Time to support the Republican candidate, Newt can do plenty in that capacity.
Gypsy says it best, "We the people are coming", that includes Newt.
RF 1
I would love to see debates between obama and Newt. I just don't see it happening in a debate setting. Time to support the Republican candidate, Newt can do plenty in that capacity.
For repayment of campaign debt plus 'expenses', as the RNC chair, I would commission Spkr. Gingrich to 'follow' the Democratic candidate as he flies around the country making speeches, etc. and do as he stated during the campaign - which is 'debate' the President (in absentia) every day.
Far more effective than a media blitz IMHO.
For repayment of campaign debt plus 'expenses', as the RNC chair, I would commission Spkr. Gingrich to 'follow' the Democratic candidate as he flies around the country making speeches, etc. and do as he stated during the campaign - which is 'debate' the President (in absentia) every day.
Far more effective than a media blitz IMHO.
I'd love to see that. :cool:
Red Flag 1
04-19-2012, 20:09
I'd love to see that. :cool:
Either that, or somebody needs to wind up Joe Biden for a strong two week run. Haven't heard much from number two for a while.
RF 1
GratefulCitizen
04-19-2012, 22:33
And the problem with that is??? It used to be that if we saw someone like that, we would say "wow, someday, if I work hard enough, maybe I can have an elevator in my house." Now it is"do you see that f*&ing guy. Why does he get an elevator in his house and I don't have one? He must have taken something from me so that he could be better off"
That is the whole problem with this country. Everyone thinks the size of the pie stays the same, therefore if you have more, I must have less. Instead of the pie changes size, and even though you have a bigger piece, because the pie is bigger, so do I.
Class warfare at it's best. Not saying you believe that, but a majority of people now adays see it that way. Just the other day I was at a family dinner and my cousin was giving me shit about my mercedes, and how I think I am better than him. Well jackass, I have 2 masters degrees, and have steadily been climbing the ladder for 18 years. You on the other hand barely have a BA, smoke pot most of the day, and took a dead end job because it was easy. He thinks because I have it good, it is my fault he isn't as well off.
Tough Shit.
Class warfare works because people can't see far beyond the level of zero-sum thinking where their mind currently is.
Stage 1: The world sucks (law of the jungle)
Stage 2: My life sucks
Stage 3: I am great
Stage 4: We are great
Stage 5: The world is great (no longer zero-sum)
At most, a person can only perceive and relate one level ahead of where they are.
So if you see a world full of opportunities and successfully pursue them, someone at stage 2 won't see it that way.
They will assume you are either lying (my life sucks) or you are trying to put them down (I am great).
There's not much you can do to push this process, and most people don't get past stage 2 or 3.
The best you can do is insulate yourself from envy-driven destructive behavior and hope they "get it" someday.
This is one of many reasons why we need strong private property rights.
Either that, or somebody needs to wind up Joe Biden for a strong two week run. Haven't heard much from number two for a while.
RF 1
When he gets near a microphone, his handlers' asscheeks clamp so tight you couldn't crack 'em with the Jaws o' Life.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/05/obama-empty-arena
Barack Obama launched his campaign in unspectacular fashion today at Ohio State University, the largest college in the crucial swing state. A photo posted to twitter by Mitt Romney's campaign spokesman Ryan Williams reveals that the event was poorly attended. The above image, according to Williams, was taken during the President's first official campaign speech.
During the speech, Obama ripped into the presumptive GOP nominee and discussed nation building at home, but the most newsworthy item of the day was not the talking points Obama delivered: it was the crowd... or lack thereof. According to ABC News, the Obama campaign had expected an "overflow" of people. Instead, the arena was half-empty. The Columbus Dispatch reports that Obama organizers even had people move from the seats to the floor of the gym in order to project a larger crowd on television.
According to the Toledo Blade, the venue for Obama's rally seats 20,000 but "there were a lot of empty seats." Comparatively, Obama drew a crowd of 35,000 at Ohio State when he campaigned for former Governor Ted Strickland in 2010.
The official Barack Obama Tumblr boasts a figure from ThinkProgress that 14,000 attended the event--70% of the stadium's seating capacity.
To hold a campaign event in a room that you can't fill is a mistake; to promise the media a more-than-capacity crowd then fall this far short of that promise is an act of utter incompetence. In 2008, Obama ran a near-flawless campaign, buoyed by enthusiasm and effective organizing. But it's not 2008 any more, and on day one of the 2012 campaign, Team Obama has already made an embarrassing blunder.Snip
To hold a campaign event in a room that you can't fill is a mistake; to promise the media a more-than-capacity crowd then fall this far short of that promise is an act of utter incompetence.The highlighted portion of the quote above summarizes his entire term as president.
Post 2008 election run...incompetence has become his signature trademark.
Yes, this quote is truthful in its facts ....
But it's not 2008 any more, and on day one of the 2012 campaign, Team Obama has already made an embarrassing blunder.Snip
But the one snippet that struck me about Dusty's link was this ......
According to ABC News, the Obama campaign had expected an "overflow" of people. Instead, the arena was half-empty.
Half Empty ...... Kind of a Pessimistic view, isn't it ????
Pessimism is a state of mind in which one anticipates negative outcomes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pessimism
I LOVE IT !!!!! :D :D :D
Obama Wows Half-Empty Stadium in Ohio to Kick Off Splendid Campaign!
One of the commenter's pointed out that the stadium was, in fact, full. The, apparently, empty seat are, in fact, occupied by his dead voters. ;)
Pat
A continuation of the Great Leap Forward...
from ThePeoplesCube.com
On the topic of running mates, an interesting and enlightening expose on Chris Christie's conservatism:
http://conservativenewjersey.com/the-myth-of-christie-conservatism-intro
Gov. Christie basks in the conservative limelight partly because the opposition party has veered so sharply to the left nationwide that it makes moderates and RINOs in the center look conservative by comparison. In a center-right country blighted by liberalism, people are hungry for true conservatism and to that end, Mr. Christie delivered the rhetoric: he talks a tough conservative ball game and is adept at crafting excellent soundbites for the television cameras. Translating those soundbites into actual policies, however, is an entirely different matter as we will explore in much greater detail throughout this series.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
On the topic of running mates, an interesting and enlightening expose on Chris Christie's conservatism:
http://conservativenewjersey.com/the-myth-of-christie-conservatism-intro
How stupid could Mitt be in going with another RINO?
A 40%er getting the nomination and picking another 40%er as a running mate?
He can sew up as many of the moderates and indys as he wants but if 5% of the far right 20%ers stay at home and watch the returns on TV it's "Hello President Obama for a second term."
The base is where you pull the worker bees for an election. Manning phone banks, going door to door, working the table at events, putting out signs in their yards etc, etc.
A non-fired up base translates into more than just their vote on election day.
How stupid could Mitt be in going with another RINO?
A 40%er getting the nomination and picking another 40%er as a running mate?
He can sew up as many of the moderates and indys as he wants but if 5% of the far right 20%ers stay at home and watch the returns on TV it's "Hello President Obama for a second term."
The base is where you pull the worker bees for an election. Manning phone banks, going door to door, working the table at events, putting out signs in their yards etc, etc.
A non-fired up base translates into more than just their vote on election day.
Amen.
I'm hoping for Condi or Marco.
How stupid could Mitt be in going with another RINO?
A 40%er getting the nomination and picking another 40%er as a running mate?
He can sew up as many of the moderates and indys as he wants but if 5% of the far right 20%ers stay at home and watch the returns on TV it's "Hello President Obama for a second term."
The base is where you pull the worker bees for an election. Manning phone banks, going door to door, working the table at events, putting out signs in their yards etc, etc.
A non-fired up base translates into more than just their vote on election day.
He will go with someone with foreign policy experience that has been vetted before. If I was a betting woman I would say Peatreus. That choice has the added value of being in the current regime's inner circle, which would balance out Obamas "stated" CINC qualificatiions over Romney. And Obama would have a hard time attacking someone he put in that position. He also has bipartisan support in Congress.
Tough to beat those qualifications, in my opinion.
Amen.
I'm hoping for Condi or Marco.
I'm afraid if Romney chooses Rubio, it'll be Dan Quayle or Sarah Palin all over again. This isn't necessarily because he wouldn't make an excellent VP, but the media would go to town on him by painting him as inexperienced. Granted, Obama was and still is meriting of that label, but the media naturally gave him a pass on it.
And of course, if Rubio is the VP nominee, he will be the target of all kinds of racial slurs which will again somehow go unnoticed by the mainstream media. :rolleyes:
I'm afraid if Romney chooses Rubio, it'll be Dan Quayle or Sarah Palin all over again. This isn't necessarily because he wouldn't make an excellent VP, but the media would go to town on him by painting him as inexperienced. Granted, Obama was and still is meriting of that label, but the media naturally gave him a pass on it.
And of course, if Rubio is the VP nominee, he will be the target of all kinds of racial slurs which will again somehow go unnoticed by the mainstream media. :rolleyes:
We need the Latino vote. Screw the media-they're gonna jump on anybody who gets selected.
We need the Latino vote. Screw the media-they're gonna jump on anybody who gets selected.
Romney isn't going to get the liberal Latino vote as long as the Latino is a Republican.
I like Rubio, but just as I felt with Obama, he doesn't have the experience. Romney needs to throw out all the "conventional" wisdom about picking a running mate and find someone who is qualified to step in his shoes and take over it ever comes to that. Pandering to a certain voting block turns off voters of other blocks.
greenberetTFS
05-08-2012, 13:32
The talk down here is it will be Bobby Jindahl (Louisiana's Gov.) He's very well liked in an extremely red neck area .........;)
Big Teddy :munchin
Badger52
05-08-2012, 14:02
Romney isn't going to get the liberal Latino vote as long as the Latino is a Republican.
I like Rubio, but just as I felt with Obama, he doesn't have the experience. Romney needs to throw out all the "conventional" wisdom about picking a running mate and find someone who is qualified to step in his shoes and take over it ever comes to that. Pandering to a certain voting block turns off voters of other blocks.Agree. And that person should be able, in a congenial 1:1, face-to-face moment among gentlemen, grab Romney up by the stacking swivel and remind him which party he's supposed to be representing and "no more lunch dates with pond scum like Bloomberg." Enhanced techniques authorized.
:rolleyes:
There may be alot of folks, having had enough of the lesser of two weevils approach, deciding to sit this one out.
The talk down here is it will be Bobby Jindahl (Louisiana's Gov.) He's very well liked in an extremely red neck area .........;)
Big Teddy :munchin
I think Jindal would be a more intriguing pick than Rubio. He has proved his leadership abilities, especially during the Oil Crisis. And, as David Frum at CNN has pointed out, many Asian Americans have set up small businesses and are thus a potentially key demographic for voting conservative. Jindal did deliver that less-than-stellar response to Obama's State of the Union Address a few years back, but many politicians have recovered from worse mishaps.
Romney isn't going to get the liberal Latino vote as long as the Latino is a Republican.
I like Rubio, but just as I felt with Obama, he doesn't have the experience. Romney needs to throw out all the "conventional" wisdom about picking a running mate and find someone who is qualified to step in his shoes and take over it ever comes to that. Pandering to a certain voting block turns off voters of other blocks.
It would be "pandering to a certain voting block" if that were the sole reason for picking Rubio; it's not.
There are many other qualifications he meets, as well; the fact that he's Latino is a bonus.
The Reaper
05-08-2012, 16:14
It would be "pandering to a certain voting block" if that were the sole reason for picking Rubio; it's not.
There are many other qualifications he meets, as well; the fact that he's Latino is a bonus.
Exactly.
If he can deliver Florida, and pick up 10% of the Latinos who voted for Obama last time, in the right states, it might be just enough for 270.
TR
Well, last night's vote results were interesting. Lugar kicked to the curb, a prison inmate gets 4 out of 10 votes in WV against the President and NC?
NC Democrats vote 79% Obama - 20% no preference.
NC Republicans vote 65% Mitt, 10% Ron Paul - and then split the other 25% between two who had dropped out and Mr No Preference.
Hmmm, is NC slipping from the President's grasp or will the "conservatives" hand it to him again on a platter?
olhamada
05-09-2012, 06:04
Best VP pick? Condi Rice. She rocks, has a wealth of experience, and would shore up many minority voters. :lifter
Well, last night's vote results were interesting. Lugar kicked to the curb, a prison inmate gets 4 out of 10 votes in WV against the President and NC?
NC Democrats vote 79% Obama - 20% no preference.
NC Republicans vote 65% Mitt, 10% Ron Paul - and then split the other 25% between two who had dropped out and Mr No Preference.
Hmmm, is NC slipping from the President's grasp or will the "conservatives" hand it to him again on a platter?
I don't think NC is gonna be a fight, because RTP's already decided on no more Obama.
Imo, Florida's sold on ABO, too.
The Reaper
05-09-2012, 16:08
It would appear that at this time, the POTUS has decided to play to his base rather than trying to reach out to moderates and broaden his support.
We will see how that plays out for him.
TR
LOL, a big middle finger to the slow-jam-man...? Romney may or may not be everyone's cup of tea - but is this race becoming his to loose?
The Coal Fields of Southern West Virginia Vote for a Felon Instead of Obama
Posted:May 09, 2012 6:46 PM EDT
Updated:May 09, 2012 6:46 PM EDT
By Lauren Weppler, Anchor
http://www.wvnstv.com/story/18246827/the-coal-fields-of-southern-west-virginia-vote-for-a-felon-instead-of-obama
Nine counties throughout West Virginia choose a convicted felon over President Barack Obama for the democratic nomination.
Even though President Obama did win the democratic nomination for the state of West Virginia it wasn't my much.
Keith Judd was able to obtain 40 percent of the votes here in West Virginia.
Wyoming County is one of the nine counties which had a strong showing for the convicted felon, now serving time in Texas.
Barbara Davis of Wyoming County explains why people may have voted for Judd in the county, "It shows what a poor state our people are in they'll vote for anything before they'll vote for government we've got now, democrat or republican.
Mercer County was just 30 votes shy of also nominating Judd.
"I think it speaks for itself that we would prefer Obama not being in office and have another candidate to vote for," said Nancy Oquinn who resides in Mercer County.
Diana Gibson agrees with Oquinn, "It's basically a statement. His change hasn't been change it's a change not for the good it's been for the bad."
Gibson admits if she would have voted, she probably would have voted for Judd instead of Obama. She said her decision has nothing to do with race, ""I don't care what color you are, if you can get our country back on track that's good."
*"He's not for coal, and coal is West Virginia," said Billy Cooper a Wyoming County resident who feels Obama's EPA stances may have deterred voters.
Other voters we interviewed said the issues of the economy and a large population of conservative democrats may have been the reason Judd won over Obama in certain counties of West Virginia.
The majority of voters in Gilmer, Clay, Boone, Lincoln, Logan, Mingo,*Tucker, and Webster counties voted Judd over Obama during Tuesday's Primary Election.
The coal fields extend beyond WVa.
The current administration, if they reach a certain low in polling data across the board, will more than likely adopt a scorched-earth political posture similar to the one the Dems used when Pelosi Galore et al were certain they were about to be ousted.
I think it's already begun, to some extent. Obama's definitely kowtowing to his base a la gay marriage, and he's stymied by process from doing a lot of further legislative damage.
IMO one of his appointees leaked to him the fact that Obamacare's a no-go, so he's gonna indicate to his kook devotees that the time to fix bayonets is here.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Gay backlash
Gay backlash
Why does that sound so much like a chiropractors diagnosis? :D
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/washington-secrets/2012/05/shock-poll-romney-now-leads-among-women/613771
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.”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/dem-primary-challenger-down-7-obama-arkansas_645010.html
May 16, 2012
Washington Times online
Steven Dinan
President Obama's budget suffered a second embarrassing defeat Wednesday, when senators voted 99-0 to reject it.
Coupled with the House's rejection in March, 414-0, that means Mr. Obama's budget has failed to win a single vote in support this year.
Republicans forced the vote by offering the president's plan on the Senate floor.
http://p.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/may/16/obama-budget-defeated-99-0-senate/
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/05/16/warning-signs-in-wisconsin-for-obama/
In a potentially ominous sign for the Obama campaign, a new poll has declared Wisconsin a true tossup state, finding President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney locked in a 46%-46% tie among likely voters.
As the Obama team eyes potential paths to victory in November, all count on the president winning the reliably blue states of New England, the Midwest and the Upper Midwest, all of which went for Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. A loss of any of the bigger traditionally blue states—particularly Pennsylvania, Michigan or Wisconsin—would scramble the Obama math and make matters much easier for Mr. Romney, allowing him to lose in Virginia or Ohio without that automatically jeopardizing his chances.
Mr. Obama won Wisconsin handily in 2008, and has lead there by wide margins in most recent polls. But a new Marquette University Law School poll finds that Mr. Obama’s 4-point lead from April has vanished, despite other poll findings that has exactly half of the states’ voters feeling optimistic about Wisconsin’s future. Nearly 8 in 10 voters say the economy will improve or stay the same over the next year.
Also in the last month Mr. Obama’s favorable rating dropped sharply, from 55% to 49%.
A slip in Mr. Obama’s fortunes in Wisconsin could easily spill into nearby states like Michigan, which the Romney campaign is hoping to make competitive.
Snip
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/05/16/warning-signs-in-wisconsin-for-obama/
In a potentially ominous sign for the Obama campaign, a new poll has declared Wisconsin a true tossup state, finding President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney locked in a 46%-46% tie among likely voters.
As the Obama team eyes potential paths to victory in November, all count on the president winning the reliably blue states of New England, the Midwest and the Upper Midwest, all of which went for Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. A loss of any of the bigger traditionally blue states—particularly Pennsylvania, Michigan or Wisconsin—would scramble the Obama math and make matters much easier for Mr. Romney, allowing him to lose in Virginia or Ohio without that automatically jeopardizing his chances.
Mr. Obama won Wisconsin handily in 2008, and has lead there by wide margins in most recent polls. But a new Marquette University Law School poll finds that Mr. Obama’s 4-point lead from April has vanished, despite other poll findings that has exactly half of the states’ voters feeling optimistic about Wisconsin’s future. Nearly 8 in 10 voters say the economy will improve or stay the same over the next year.
Also in the last month Mr. Obama’s favorable rating dropped sharply, from 55% to 49%.
A slip in Mr. Obama’s fortunes in Wisconsin could easily spill into nearby states like Michigan, which the Romney campaign is hoping to make competitive.
Snip
I don't think the Badger State is nearly as liberal as it used to be. Bush almost carried Wisconsin both times, and it just hasn't had quite the progressive vibe that was once present and had started in Madison. My guess is it will be a hotly contested battleground state...and if Romney can steal its 10 electoral votes, that could potentially be a disaster for Obama.
I don't think the Badger State is nearly as liberal as it used to be. Bush almost carried Wisconsin both times, and it just hasn't had quite the progressive vibe that was once present and had started in Madison. My guess is it will be a hotly contested battleground state...and if Romney can steal its 10 electoral votes, that could potentially be a disaster for Obama.
What happened is indicative, IMO, of the fact that Obama can no longer take his bread and butter constituency votes for granted, and that if a fair election were to take place today, he'd lose big.
If all they have on Romney is a 47 year-old Code Red incident, they in a heap o' trouble.
I guarantee you what happened is Wisconsin has scrunched up a few buttholes in the First Gay President's campaign camp.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/us/politics/gop-super-pac-weighs-hard-line-attack-on-obama.html?_r=1&hp
WASHINGTON — A group of high-profile Republican strategists is working with a conservative billionaire on a proposal to mount one of the most provocative campaigns of the “super PAC” era and attack President Obama in ways that Republicans have so far shied away from.
Timed to upend the Democratic National Convention in September, the plan would “do exactly what John McCain would not let us do,” the strategists wrote.
The plan, which is awaiting approval, calls for running commercials linking Mr. Obama to incendiary comments by his former spiritual adviser, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., whose race-related sermons made him a highly charged figure in the 2008 campaign.
“The world is about to see Jeremiah Wright and understand his influence on Barack Obama for the first time in a big, attention-arresting way,” says the proposal, which was overseen by Fred Davis and commissioned by Joe Ricketts, the founder of the brokerage firm TD Ameritrade. Mr. Ricketts is increasingly putting his fortune to work in conservative politics.
The $10 million plan, one of several being studied by Mr. Ricketts, includes preparations for how to respond to the charges of race-baiting it envisions if it highlights Mr. Obama’s former ties to Mr. Wright, who espouses what is known as “black liberation theology.”
The group suggested hiring as a spokesman an “extremely literate conservative African-American” who can argue that Mr. Obama misled the nation by presenting himself as what the proposal calls a “metrosexual, black Abe Lincoln.”
A copy of a detailed advertising plan was obtained by The New York Times through a person not connected to the proposal who was alarmed by its tone. It is titled “The Defeat of Barack Hussein Obama: The Ricketts Plan to End His Spending for Good.”
The proposal was presented last week in Chicago to associates and family members of Mr. Ricketts, who is also the patriarch of the family that owns the Chicago Cubs.
Brian Baker, president and general counsel of a super PAC called the Ending Spending Action Fund, said Mr. Ricketts had studied several advertising proposals in recent months and had not signed off on a specific approach to taking on Mr. Obama.
“Joe Ricketts is prepared to spend significant resources in the 2012 election in both the presidential race and Congressional races,” Mr. Baker said in an interview Wednesday. “He is very concerned about the future direction of the country and plans to take a stand.”
The document makes clear that the effort is only in the planning stages and awaiting full approval from Mr. Ricketts. People involved in the planning said the publicity now certain to surround it could send the strategists back to the drawing board.
But it serves as a rare, detailed look at the birth of the sort of political sneak attack that has traditionally been hatched in the shadows and has become a staple of presidential politics.
It also shows how a single individual can create his own movement and spend unlimited sums to have major influence on a presidential election in a campaign finance environment in which groups operating independently of candidates are flourishing.
Should the plan proceed, it would run counter to the strategy being employed by Mitt Romney’s team, which has so far avoided such attacks. The Romney campaign has sought to focus attention on the economy, and has concluded that personal attacks on Mr. Obama, who is still well liked personally by most independent voters surveyed for polls, could backfire.
Mr. Ricketts has become an increasingly active player in Republican politics through several political action committees, including Ending Spending. He has a son, Pete, who is a member of the Republican National Committee from Nebraska and a daughter, Laura, who is a top contributor to Mr. Obama’s re-election campaign. She has not been involved in her father’s political efforts.
The 54-page proposal was professionally bound and illustrated with color photographs, indicating that it is far beyond a mere discussion. The strategists have already contacted Larry Elder, a black conservative radio host in Los Angeles, about serving as a spokesman, and the plan calls for a group of black business leaders to endorse the effort. The strategists have also registered a domain name, Character Matters.
Snip
I saw that article and I'm concerned that like how so often the military finds itself re-fighting the last war, this plan, doing what McCain should have done, is exactly that - fighting the 2008 campaign!
I saw that article and I'm concerned that like how so often the military finds itself re-fighting the last war, this plan, doing what McCain should have done, is exactly that - fighting the 2008 campaign!
By whatever means necessary. Fight fire with fire.
It's not that I don't see your point; fact is, there was no verification of Obama's credentials in 2008, so it has to be done, now.
Airbornelawyer
05-17-2012, 10:19
I don't think the Badger State is nearly as liberal as it used to be. Bush almost carried Wisconsin both times, and it just hasn't had quite the progressive vibe that was once present and had started in Madison. My guess is it will be a hotly contested battleground state...and if Romney can steal its 10 electoral votes, that could potentially be a disaster for Obama.
To put some color to this:
2000:
Gore: 47.83%
Bush: 47.61%
The margin was 5708 votes
2004:
Kerry: 49.7%
Bush: 49.3%
The margin was 11384 votes
In both cases, though, Ralph Nader took a number of votes that likely otherwise would have gone to the Democrat. McCain received about 216,000 fewer votes than Bush did in 2004, while Obama received about 188,000 more votes than Kerry.
Despite a small population increase between 2004 and 2008 (about 120,000, not all of whom would be voting age), the total number of votes cast in 2008 was actually slightly less than in 2004 (2,997,007 in 2004 versus 2,983,417 in 2008). So Obama's margin likely reflected (a) traditionally Republican voters who preferred Obama over McCain and (b) traditional non-voters who were energized to come out by Obama's candidacy. By contrast, McCain's margin of loss apparently was due to about 200,000 Republicans who either voted for Obama or stayed home.
This time around, President Obama can likely count on his liberal base, although the energy level might not be as high, but how many Republicans are likely to defect his way now versus 2008? On the other side, Romney himself might not energize the Republican base significantly more than McCain, but the base is energized by an "anybody but Obama" mentality and Romney might have more appeal to those Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who supported Bush in 2004 but moved to Obama in 2008. And Republicans in Wisconsin are more energized in general because of the Scott Walker recall issue.
This is probably why the national Democratic Party is shunning the unions on the Walker recall, because they recognize that the backlash is energizing Republicans and putting the state in play.
I still think the odds favor Obama's reelection slightly, so no Republican should get complacent, but Romney's odds are a little better, and news like this out of Wisconsin makes me more hopeful of the (admittedly) remote possibility of a landslide rebuke of Obama and the Democrats attempt to turn the US into another failing European-style social democracy.
Entire post.
That's an outstanding illustration of the status quo.
Badger52
05-17-2012, 13:06
That's an outstanding illustration of the status quo.I commend that also; was a good EXSUM.
The candidate who actually came into WI and resonated bigtime was Rick Santorum, who went allllllllll over the place. Romneyus stayed around the lib bastion cities. The DNC is correct to stay publicly out of the recall fight. A win for them, they've donated millions to match the RNC effort supporting Walker. But folks only read what the apples/oranges sound bite is, e.g.,
-------------
Walker's raised $12 Million! (sum of all including the national party)
The opposition candidate has raised $647,000 (just them, ignoring the DNC support and SEIU and AFLCIO & straphangers).
-------------
So the DNC has no reason to get into a public pissin' contest on a local issue they feel is being handled by their proxies. The heartening thing is that Walker drew more than the total of all Dems who turned out for the primary, we'll see how that plays out in a bit less than 3 weeks.
Right now it would take alot of CR123's for Romney to light up anything as compared to the local stuff. His situation reminds me of Crash Davis' assessment of the young pitcher in 'Bull Durham':
"Yeah, from what I hear you couldn't get wet if you fell out of a f'n boat."
Santorum really struck a chord. Damn.
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
It's a long way to November and there are going to be multiple polls every day.
People will fell good when one poll has their guy up and feel bad when one has their guy down.
Hey, work like they all got your guy down - get 'er done come November.
It's a long way to November and there are going to be multiple polls every day.
People will fell good when one poll has their guy up and feel bad when one has their guy down.
Hey, work like they all got your guy down - get 'er done come November.
True.
But, even this early, it's cool to see Romney gaining a point or two every time The First Gay president steps on his wee-wee.
GratefulCitizen
05-17-2012, 16:55
Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida are the critical states.
It's looking like Romney will get Ohio, North Carolina and Florida.
My guess: if the election is close, it will come down to Virginia.
Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida are the critical states.
It's looking like Romney will get Ohio, North Carolina and Florida.
My guess: if the election is close, it will come down to Virginia.
I heard the state was a theoretical toss-up at this time...
........ While I don't like Obama as president either, at least he and the Democrats ultimately get the blame for the economy right now.................
That's not what the MSM is saying - more like the Repub's ain't doing enough.
Notice how the MSM don't make much of the House passing a budget the last couple of years - except harping on how draconian the cuts were (What "cuts"?) and nothing about the Senate under the D-rats not putting out a budget in how many years now?
I think the D-rats keep the Senate and block everything - but the MSM blames every on Mitt and the Repub's.
I am actually a bit concerned over if Romney wins in November, because then if the economy doesn't turn around under him, he and the Republicans are going to get all of the blame. While I don't like Obama as president either, at least he and the Democrats ultimately get the blame for the economy right now. On the other hand, I don't want him to remain president either, for all the things that entails. If Romney wins and the economy still doesn't turn around, the one positive I do see is that the next Democratic challenger likely won't be as leftwing as Obama is.
I just read your post, out loud, in a whiny snivel, and now I understand why homosexuals don't bother you. :D
Let's get a Republican in there and worry about 2016 later, dude.
greenberetTFS
05-18-2012, 16:15
I just read your post, out loud, in a whiny snivel, and now I understand why homosexuals don't bother you. :D
Let's get a Republican in there and worry about 2016 later, dude.
Concur completely,first things first........;) ;)
Big Teddy :munchin
Airbornelawyer
05-18-2012, 17:30
It's a long way to November and there are going to be multiple polls every day.
People will fell good when one poll has their guy up and feel bad when one has their guy down.
Hey, work like they all got your guy down - get 'er done come November.
For a while, the first thing I looked at when the latest poll got hyped was whether it was of registered voters or of likely voters. Generally, registered voter polls skew farther to the left. Likely voter polls tend to be more reliable, but usually closer to the election in question, since farther out people will often claim to be likely to vote when they actually aren't.
Of late, though, the first thing I look for when the poll comes out (well maybe the second after the RV vs LV thing) is the partisan breakdown. The news sites like to hype the big swings in their polls, and then leave it to you to dig deeper to determine if the swing was genuinely due to changing sentiment or simply due to oversampling or undersampling one party or another. It is really quite annoying.
Red Flag 1
05-18-2012, 19:40
I am actually a bit concerned over if Romney wins in November, because then if the economy doesn't turn around under him, he and the Republicans are going to get all of the blame. While I don't like Obama as president either, at least he and the Democrats ultimately get the blame for the economy right now. On the other hand, I don't want him to remain president either, for all the things that entails. If Romney wins and the economy still doesn't turn around, the one positive I do see is that the next Democratic challenger likely won't be as leftwing as Obama is.
I am hoping that Scott Walker wins in June and that the SCOTUS strikes down Obamacare, that would make for a very happy month:cool:
obama is still blaming President Bush and the Republicans for the economy. So it will be like obama was never there, right?:eek:.
RF 1
obama is still blaming President Bush and the Republicans for the economy. So it will be like obama was never there, right?:eek:.
RF 1
Only in flashbacks, later.
ZonieDiver
05-18-2012, 20:02
Only in flashbacks, later.
Like that one where you're back in high school, and can't remember your locker combination? And then, you look down and you don't have pants on? Like that one?
Like that one where you're back in high school, and can't remember your locket combination? And then, you look down and you don't have pants on? Like that one?
Yeah. Or the one where you're back in high school and you can't remember how to spell locker. :D
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/barack-obamas-arkansas-primary-problem/2012/05/22/gIQAV0oihU_blog.html
That’s because only Obama and John Wolfe, a Tennessee lawyer, are on the Democratic presidential primary ballot in the Razorback State. (Wolfe took 12 percent — and nearly 18,000 votes — in a four-way fight in the Louisiana Democratic presidential primary in late March.) And a recent independent poll showed Obama running just seven points ahead of Wolfe in the southern Arkansas 4th district, which covers one-quarter of the state.
All of this takes place on a backdrop that is decidedly less than friendly for Obama. Even while he was sweeping to a national victory (and 365 electoral votes) in 2008, Obama received just 39 percent in Arkansas — six points worse than Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry did four years earlier.
“Arkansas voters are informed voters and are fully aware that John Wolfe will not make it out of the primary,” said one well-connected Arkansas Democrat. “However, if John Wolfe has a strong showing tomorrow, it’s a sign that Democratic voters in Arkansas are frustrated with the administration’s policies and further reiteration that Southern Democrats simply cannot identify with President Obama.”
And, if the press coverage of Keith Judd’s surprisingly strong showing two weeks ago in West Virginia is any indication, you can expect Wolfe to draw significant attention in the immediate aftermath of today’s vote.
Couple Wolfe’s candidacy in Arkansas with the fact that Kentucky — another place where Obama isn’t popular with many people who call themselves Democrats — also votes today (Obama faces no opponents in Kentucky, but voters there can select “uncommitted” as an option) and you have the potential for a less-than-friendly narrative regarding Obama come Wednesday. And that would follow 72 hours of coverage about Newark Mayor Cory Booker’s comments about private equity and how it should be off-limits in the campaign.
Snip
When the New Black Panther party thinks you are a joke as POTUS, you may have a problem.
Curious that NBPP is advocating "the bullet" yet no talk of the Secret Service coming to talk to them, like they did with Ted Nugent. Funny how that works.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/22/disappointed-in-obama-new-black-panthers-openly-consider-the-bullet/
From afchic's link
"...............“Black peoples are the whores and prostitutes of the Democratic Party, and mistreated mistress that is courted in the late of night, but left hanging when it is time for real change in the light of the post election day,” Shabazz wrote, following a dissertation on the need to “Vote for Revolution.”........................"
Well Duh. We've known that for at least 20 years. What took you so long to figure it out, Shabazz?
If all Obama's campaign has for ammo is Bain capital, this ain't gonna be as hard as people think.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/22/obama-stakes-his-re-election-on-bain-attacks/
http://www.cfnews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2012/5/23/quinnipiac_florida_p.html
TALLAHASSEE --
A new poll shows former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney building a lead over President Barack Obama in the crucial swing state of Florida.
According to the latest Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday, Romney was preferred by 47 percent to Obama's 41 percent among a random telephone survey of 1,722 registered Florida voters.
The poll, conducted May 15–21, has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.4 percentage points.
The survey also indicated that having U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, of Miami, on the Republican ticket with Romney would have little effect on voter decisions. Romney led Obama 49 percent to 41 percent with Rubio as his running mate.
The latest sampling of voter moods showed the candidates' opposing views on same-sex marriage was a factor with one-third of the respondents.
Snip
When the New Black Panther party thinks you are a joke as POTUS, you may have a problem.
Curious that NBPP is advocating "the bullet" yet no talk of the Secret Service coming to talk to them, like they did with Ted Nugent. Funny how that works.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/22/disappointed-in-obama-new-black-panthers-openly-consider-the-bullet/
Just over a year ago, I attended a lecture in which a former member of the original Black Panther Party spoke. By her own admission, the prevailing mindset among them was that our culture truly is a struggle between races, and that African Americans must utilize any means necessary...including violence...to free themselves from the oppression of whites. I think every moral, law-abiding African American (and people of all races) should be appalled by organizations like these that advocate aggression, even to the point of violence. MLK was a proponent of civil disobedience, but only through peaceful means and believed that blacks should be held to the same standard as whites and not judged by the color of their skin. Hence why I am opposed to affirmative action...it is practically an insult to blacks and other minorities who have honestly distinguished themselves through hard work.
It certainly is a relief that the ADL and especially the SPLC consider the New Black Panther Party to be a hate group...
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/24/gop-triple-play-romney-trump-and-gingrich-to-campaign-together/
CNN) – Presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney will be joined in Las Vegas next week by two of his backers: former candidate Newt Gingrich and reality television star Donald Trump.
The event will take place Tuesday at Trump's International Hotel on the Strip. Romney's campaign is also raffling a chance to have dinner with Trump for supporters who donate to the campaign.
"I want you: Dine with the Donald," a campaign flier proclaims, along with a drawing of Trump.
The campaign offers: "Airport transportation in the Trump vehicle; Stay at the Trump International Hotel & Tower New York; Tour the Celebrity Apprentice Boardroom; Dine with Donald Trump and Mitt Romney."
Trump, who flirted with a bid for the White House last year, said he wouldn't run for the White House because he didn't want to cancel his reality show, "The Apprentice" in order to comply with equal air time laws for candidates.
After a parade of GOP candidates visited Trump in Manhattan, the celebrity business magnate finally announced he was backing Romney in February.
"It's my honor, real honor, to endorse Mitt Romney," Trump said, with Romney and his wife standing nearby. Calling Romney "tough" and "smart," Trump said, "he's not going to continue to allow bad things to happen to this country."
Trump was not always so positive regarding Romney's record. During an interview on CNN's "State of the Union" in April, Trump criticized Romney for eliminating jobs while in the private sector.
"He'd buy companies. He'd close companies. He'd get rid of jobs," Trump told CNN Chief Political Correspondent Candy Crowley. "I've built a great company. My net worth is many many times Mitt Romney."
Gingrich, who dropped his bid for the GOP nomination in April, said in a CNN interview soon after suspending his campaign he was backing Romney.
"I said I want to campaign for him and he will appoint dramatically better judges than the president and he'll do a better job creating jobs than the president and he'll do far more to balance the budget. I went down the list of why Mitt Romney is better than Barack Obama," Gingrich said on "The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer."
Snip
greenberetTFS
05-25-2012, 10:11
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/24/gop-triple-play-romney-trump-and-gingrich-to-campaign-together/
CNN) – Presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney will be joined in Las Vegas next week by two of his backers: former candidate Newt Gingrich and reality television star Donald Trump.
The event will take place Tuesday at Trump's International Hotel on the Strip. Romney's campaign is also raffling a chance to have dinner with Trump for supporters who donate to the campaign.
"I want you: Dine with the Donald," a campaign flier proclaims, along with a drawing of Trump.
The campaign offers: "Airport transportation in the Trump vehicle; Stay at the Trump International Hotel & Tower New York; Tour the Celebrity Apprentice Boardroom; Dine with Donald Trump and Mitt Romney."
Trump, who flirted with a bid for the White House last year, said he wouldn't run for the White House because he didn't want to cancel his reality show, "The Apprentice" in order to comply with equal air time laws for candidates.
After a parade of GOP candidates visited Trump in Manhattan, the celebrity business magnate finally announced he was backing Romney in February.
"It's my honor, real honor, to endorse Mitt Romney," Trump said, with Romney and his wife standing nearby. Calling Romney "tough" and "smart," Trump said, "he's not going to continue to allow bad things to happen to this country."
Trump was not always so positive regarding Romney's record. During an interview on CNN's "State of the Union" in April, Trump criticized Romney for eliminating jobs while in the private sector.
"He'd buy companies. He'd close companies. He'd get rid of jobs," Trump told CNN Chief Political Correspondent Candy Crowley. "I've built a great company. My net worth is many many times Mitt Romney."
Gingrich, who dropped his bid for the GOP nomination in April, said in a CNN interview soon after suspending his campaign he was backing Romney.
"I said I want to campaign for him and he will appoint dramatically better judges than the president and he'll do a better job creating jobs than the president and he'll do far more to balance the budget. I went down the list of why Mitt Romney is better than Barack Obama," Gingrich said on "The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer."
Snip
Slow,but sure he's making it happen...........;) :D
Big Teddy :munchin
http://news.yahoo.com/warning-signs-obama-path-electoral-votes-153258403.html
President Barack Obama faces new warning signs in a once-promising Southern state and typically Democratic-voting Midwestern states roughly five months before the election even as he benefits nationally from encouraging economic news.
Obama's new worries about North Carolina and Wisconsin offer opportunities for Republican Mitt Romney, who must peel off states Obama won in 2008 if he's to cobble together the 270 electoral votes needed to oust the incumbent in November.
Iowa, which kicked off the campaign in January, is now expected to be tight to the finish, while New Mexico, thought early to be pivotal, seems to be drifting into Democratic territory.
If the election were today, Obama would likely win 247 electoral votes to Romney's 206, according to an Associated Press analysis of polls, ad spending and key developments in states, along with interviews with more than a dozen Republican and Democratic strategists both inside and outside of the two campaigns.
Seven states, offering a combined 85 electoral votes, are viewed as too close to give either candidate a meaningful advantage: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio and Virginia.
"As of today, the advantage still lies with the president, but there is a long and hard road ahead in this election," said Tad Devine, who was a top strategist to Democratic presidential candidates Al Gore and John Kerry but isn't directly involved in this year's race.
If Romney wins all the states Republican John McCain carried in 2008 plus North Carolina, as trends today suggest he would, he would still need 64 electoral votes to hit the magic number. That would require him to win a majority of the states that are up for grabs.
Obama, on the other hand, faces the costly and labor-intensive challenge of defending those states in a much different environment than the one he enjoyed four years ago.
Big-spending, pro-Romney political committees are certain to be a factor, and already are running heavy levels of television ads in states where Obama is vulnerable, such as Florida.
But Obama's early spending — more than $30 million on advertising before Memorial Day — and new glimmers of economic hope across the battleground states demonstrate the size of Romney's challenge.
The race is expected to be close, and the past six weeks have been volatile.
North Carolina is a case in point.
Obama announced his support for gay marriage on May 9, one day after 60 percent of North Carolina voters approved a constitutional ban. "That issue definitely hurts him down there," said veteran Republican presidential campaign strategist Charlie Black, a top aide to 2008 nominee McCain. Black's not directly involved in this year's race but is an informal adviser to Romney.
North Carolina's high African American and young voter population, keys to Obama's 2008 wins there, give him the edge, aides say. And the president so far has spent heavily there, $2.7 million on television, according to reports provided to the AP.
But Democratic Gov. Bev Perdue gave Republicans an opening by not seeking re-election this year. And union leaders, a key Democratic constituency, are upset that this summer's Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C., is being held in a state where union rights are weak.
In Wisconsin, embattled Republican Gov. Scott Walker's improving fortunes as a contentious June 5 recall election approaches could alter that state's landscape. Walker, who sparked mass protests by signing anti-union legislation last year, has pulled narrowly ahead of Democratic Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett in recent polls.
If Walker survives, Romney aides say they have a real chance to carry Wisconsin, which no Republican has done since Ronald Reagan in 1984.
"I don't think there's been any better dress rehearsal for a presidential election than what's going on in Wisconsin right now," said Rich Beeson, political director for the former Massachusetts governor.
Indeed, the Wisconsin recall could signal a GOP shift in an arc of states from Iowa to Pennsylvania that have reliably voted Democratic in presidential elections for a generation.
"Whether Walker wins or doesn't is going to be a big indicator of how Wisconsin goes, and how the whole upper Midwest goes," said Iowa's Republican Gov. Terry Branstad.
Romney has signaled plans to contest Iowa, where Obama's 2008 caucus win propelled him to the Democratic nomination. Romney also sees opportunity in his native Michigan, where Democratic presidential candidates have won since 1988.
Snip
Airbornelawyer
05-28-2012, 01:05
If the election were today, Obama would likely win 247 electoral votes to Romney's 206 ...
If Romney wins all the states Republican John McCain carried in 2008 plus North Carolina, as trends today suggest he would, he would still need 64 electoral votes to hit the magic number.
That doesn't add up. The magic number is 270, barring a tie. Carrying the states McCain carried gets Romney to 180 EVs. With North Carolina, that's 195 EVs. Presumably they meant to include Indiana (11 EVs) as well as North Carolina.
That doesn't add up. The magic number is 270, barring a tie. Carrying the states McCain carried gets Romney to 180 EVs. With North Carolina, that's 195 EVs. Presumably they meant to include Indiana (11 EVs) as well as North Carolina.
Maybe the writer was putting a little left English on the spin.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/154904/Veterans-Give-Romney-Big-Lead-Obama.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=Politics
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/29/romney-clinches-gop-nomination-with-texas-primary-win/
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/romney-rebounds-among-women-while-obamas-favorability-slips/
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-30/condoleezza-rice-to-endorse-romney-at-west-coast-event.html
First "Obama's an amateur", then this:
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/05/clinton-romneys-business-record-sterling-124980.html
President Bill Clinton veered sharply off message Thursday, telling CNN that Mitt Romney's business record at Bain Capital was "sterling."
"I don't think that we ought to get into the position where we say 'This is bad work. This is good work,'" Clinton said. "The man who has been governor and had a sterling business career crosses the qualification threshold."
Clinton also went on to say that Romney's time at Bain Capital represented a "good business career."
The Obama campaign is in the third week of an all-out assault on Romney's time as a corporate buyout specialist — accusing the GOP nominee of bankrupting companies and laying off workers all while pocketing a profit for himself and investors.
But the negative tenor of their attacks on an influential segment of Wall Street have made some Democrats uncomfortable. Clinton is the highest profile Obama surrogate so far to show discomfort with the attacks on Bain, with the former president even praising the company and Romney's record. Newark mayor Cory Booker and Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick also both declined to press the attack against Bain.
In Booker's case, he released a YouTube video clarifying his comments after calling the Obama attacks (and Republican counter-attacks on Obama) "nauseating" — all while being publicly chastised by top Obama staffers.
Clinton went on to predict that Obama would carry the day in November, and would beat Romney handily.
"I still think the president will win by five or six points. I've always thought so," Clinton told guest host Harvey Weinstein, filling in for Piers Morgan.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/02/wisconsin-gov-walker-works-to-meet-voters-before-recall-vote/
Republican Gov. Scott Walker and Democratic challenger Tom Barrett began a final push Saturday to connect with voters in person before next week's historic recall election, appearing at farm breakfasts and restaurants and rallying campaign workers.
Walker is only the third U.S. governor to face a recall. The drive to oust him was spurred by anger over his plan to effectively end most public workers' collective bargaining rights. Walker insisted he had to make the move to balance the state budget, but Democrats portrayed the measure as an attack on organized labor.
Polls show a tight race with only a handful of voters still undecided before Tuesday's election, and Walker and Barrett have been struggling to win them over for the past month. Barrett released a new television ad Saturday, again calling on the governor to explain his role in an ongoing investigation of associates during Walker's tenure as Milwaukee County executive, but the candidates mostly used the day to meet voters.
Barrett, who serves as Milwaukee's mayor, spent the day on the other side of the state, starting with the Barron County Dairy Breakfast in Hillsdale, a burg of 1,250 people about 90 miles west of Minneapolis. The rest of his schedule included stops at a cafe in St. Croix Falls, a pizza joint in Superior and the state Democratic Party's office in Chippewa Falls.
"We're going to cover the whole state here in the next four days," Barrett said in a telephone interview. "I love it. This is the part that really gets your juices flowing. This is where I'm most confident, doing this."
Walker began his day before 7 a.m., serving food at a dairy breakfast on a massive farm just outside Evansville, a city of 5,000 people about 25 miles south of Madison, the state capital. His agenda called for a stop at another dairy breakfast in Monroe County before visiting campaign field offices in Hudson, Wausau, Green Bay and Wauwatosa.
"I feel good," Walker said. "We're not taking anything for granted. We're working all the way up to 8 p.m. on Tuesday."
Dressed in blue jeans, hiking boots and a button-down shirt and flanked by 18-year-old Evansville Future Farmers of America Queen Emily Templeton and 18-year-old La Prairie 4-H Club Queen Erica Ballmer, the governor handed out yogurt and applesauce to scores of people at the annual Rock County Dairy Breakfast.
A smiling Walker tried to engage people in short, friendly conversations, commenting, for example, on the beautiful morning. Most didn't seem to recognize him. They simply said "thank you" as he placed yogurt cups on their plates and moved on. A handful of people shook his hand, though, and congratulated him on his accomplishments.
One of them was Ken Pierson, 44, who runs a tool-and-die shop in Janesville with his father. He made a point of introducing his two sons to the governor. Later, he said he thinks Walker's changes will help the state in the long run and the recall isn't justified.
"There's better things to do, better reasons to go after people. It's just too obnoxious for me," Pierson said. "I see (Walker's fiscal conservatism) working in the future. It has more to do with what's going to happen tomorrow, instead of `gimme, gimme, gimme."'
The recall represents the latest chapter in a knockdown, no-holds barred political battle that has consumed the state.
The fight began in February 2011 when Walker introduced the collective bargaining measure. Tens of thousands of people descended on the state Capitol to demonstrate against the plan and minority Democrats in the state Senate fled to Illinois in a futile attempt to block a vote.
Republicans who controlled the Legislature pushed the plan through anyway. Democrats have been looking for payback ever since.
They ousted two GOP state senators in recalls last August and gathered enough signatures on recall petitions this winter to force Walker and four other Republican officeholders into Tuesday's elections.
The race between Walker and Barrett, especially, has evolved into a national referendum on union power. Republicans across the country have rallied around the governor, helping him raise a jaw-dropping $31 million in campaign cash.
U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, a Janesville Republican, and Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus appeared a tea party rally in Caledonia, just outside Racine, Saturday morning and implored hundreds in the crowd to get as many people to the polls as they can on Tuesday. They said a Walker win would segue into defeat for President Barack Obama in Wisconsin in November.
"This is an election that will send shockwaves throughout America," Ryan told the crowd. "It is a momentum maker or a momentum breaker."
Snip
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2012/06/02/obama-gets-left-behind/
Come on now. Is Obama really a “psychopathic megalomaniac”?
I learned of Obama’s problems today. Not from Ron Paul supporters. Not from Glenn Beck‘s Drudge wanna-be news site The Blaze. I read about Obama’s psychosis from left wing Democrats.
Everyday I get emails from former members of Move On, a pro-Democratic Party group that was famously active during the build-up to the Iraq War in 2003. They’re complaining about one man: President Obama.
In these emails, one thing is apparent. When it comes to the left wing liberals, Obama is being left behind.
The left was mostly raptured into political heaven four years ago when they elected Obama on bended knee. He spoke about things dear to their hearts: closing Guantanamo Bay. Ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Getting tough on bankers.
Guantanamo is still open. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are winding down, but the military presence remains. (Smacks of imperialism. That’s something the left hates as much as libertarians do.) Then there’s the president’s bit about getting tough on bankers. Where has the White House come down hard on Wall Street? Fuhgeddaboudit. This is New York!
One anti-Obama Saturday in my inbox:
Re: Write-in Kermit the Frog!
“
If being a ‘pragmatist’ or a ‘realist’ means choosing only amongst evils, count us OUT. Obama betrayed the American voters who expected he would not gut the US Constitution. Both parties are the same. And, in a world of infinite possibilities we choose not between the lesser of two evils. In fact, those of us who are not into denial and work at the human rights front lines prefer to face the Republican snake head-on then the confused and gutless Democrat chameleon whining about being a progressive when they are NOT.” — Ezili Danto, human rights lawyer at the Haitian Lawyers Leadership Network
Re: Obama is a psychopath; reminds me of Stalin
“
There’s a cancer in the presidency called Barack Obama. We have a psychopathic megalomaniac occupying the White house who could be compared to Nero, Caligula, Stalin, or Pol Pot in his disdain for human life. He and his coven of other like minded DC psychopaths and sociopaths are on a murdering spree and like a third world dictator Obama can have someone and their family (including you) executed or blasted to smithereens with a thumbs up or down. This is sickening to me. They are so blase about murdering that they refer to the hit list photos as “baseball cards”. Killing is a game or a sport to them. There is a “cancer on the Presidency” and that cancer has metastasized throughout Washington DC. It was there before Obama arrived but he brought a whole new and virulent strain with him. Every time there is a shameful incident or embarrassing event perpetrated by “a few bad apples” we hear from the DC psychopaths that “That is not who we are”. They are incorrect. It is who they are in DC. It is not who we the real everyday thinking feeling Americans are. I certainly am not one of the people to be included in their cumulative we.” — Alexander Cockburn, writing for his online publication Counterpunch. Alexander is also a columnist at The Nation, though I have a hard time believing this missive will make it passed Katrina Vanden Heuvel. Alex is a firebrand. I’ve written for him once or twice, and he was kind enough to comment on my reporting about the Iraq War for The Boston Globe in 2003 in his Beat the Devil column. This sounds like Alex being Alex, alright. Gotta love his fire.
Re: Bush mighta been better.
Hello!
“
“Why should the public believe what the Obama administration says about the people being assassinated by drones? Especially since, as we learn in the New York Times, the administration came up with a semantic solution to keep the civilian death toll to a minimum: simply count all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants. The rationale, reminiscent of George Zimmerman’s justification for shooting Trayvon Martin, is that “people in an area of known terrorist activity, or found with a top Qaeda operative, are probably up to no good.” Talk about profiling! At least when George Bush threw suspected militants into Guantanamo their lives were spared.” — Medea Benjamin, CodePINK
Obama’s dealings with the working stiff, or the perceived lack thereof, plus his foreign policy has caused much of the anger against him among the left wing of the party.
I’m not a blue dog democrat. I’m a hard hat Democrat from Massachusetts; like the guys who climb telephone poles after hurricanes that vote for Kennedy. That’s where I cast my lot.
I voted for Obama through the U.S. Consulate in São Paulo. Obama was different. He was inspiring. I watched the votes unfold on two laptops — one on CNN, one on MSNBC with emails from my American friends flooding in every minute. My Blackberry was on my lap, blowing up with texts – can you believe North Carolina? It never happens!
Obama’s winning was like a moon landing. You noticed it more when you’re overseas. America did it again, Brazilians told me. The world can elect women presidents. It’s happened before. But what advanced economy has ever elected a black man? None. Not Europe. Not Latin America. Not Australia. Not even close. They’re not even on the ballot. Only in America. What a country.
Next page: "Yes, you can, my ass!"
Snip
When Maureen Dowd turns sour, the dominoes will fall.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/03/opinion/sunday/dowd-dreaming-of-a-superhero.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
ON Friday night, the nation’s capital was under a tornado watch. And that was the best thing that happened to the White House all week.
As the president was being slapped by Mitt Romney for being too weak on national security, he was being rapped by a Times editorial for being too aggressive on national security.
A Times article by Jo Becker and Scott Shane revealed that the liberal law professor who campaigned against torture and the Iraq war now personally makes the final decisions on the “kill list,” targets for drone strikes. “A unilateral campaign of death is untenable,” the editorial asserted.
On Thursday, Bill Clinton once more telegraphed that he considers Obama a lightweight who should not have bested his wife. Bluntly contradicting the Obama campaign theme that Romney is a heartless corporate raider, Clinton told CNN that the Republican’s record at Bain was “sterling.”
Covering a humorous W. at the unveiling of his portrait, the White House press actually seemed nostalgic for the president who bollixed up Afghanistan, Iraq, Katrina and the economy — a sure sign that the Obama magic is flagging.
On Friday, an ugly job market report led to the stock market’s worst day of the year. As the recovery flat-lined, the president conceded to a crowd at a Honeywell factory in Golden Valley, Minn., that “our economy is still facing some serious headwinds” and getting sucked further into Europe’s sinkhole. In depressing imagery for the start of the summer campaign, cable channels carried the red Dow arrow pointing down while Obama spoke; the Dow wiped out all of its 2012 gains.
The president who started off with such dazzle now seems incapable of stimulating either the economy or the voters. His campaign is offering Obama 2012 car magnets for a donation of $10; cat collars reading “I Meow for Michelle” for $12; an Obama grill spatula for $40, and discounted hoodies and T-shirts. How the mighty have fallen.
Once glowing, his press is now burning. “To a very real degree, 2008’s candidate of hope stands poised to become 2012’s candidate of fear,” John Heilemann wrote in New York magazine, noting that because Obama feels he can’t run on his record, his campaign will resort to nuking Romney.
In his new book, “A Nation of Wusses,” the Democrat Ed Rendell, the former governor of Pennsylvania, wonders how “the best communicator in campaign history” lost his touch.
The legendary speaker who drew campaign crowds in the tens of thousands and inspired a dispirited nation ended up nonchalantly delegating to a pork-happy Congress, disdaining the bully pulpit, neglecting to do any L.B.J.-style grunt work with Congress and the American public, and ceding control of his narrative.
As president, Obama has never felt the need to explain or sell his signature pieces of legislation — the stimulus and health care bills — or stanch the flow of false information from the other side.
“The administration lost the communications war with disastrous consequences that played out on Election Day 2010,” Rendell writes, and Obama never got credit for the two pieces of legislation where he reached for greatness.
The president had lofty dreams of playing the great convener and conciliator. But at a fund-raiser in Minneapolis, he admitted he’s just another combatant in a capital full of Hatfields and McCoys. No compromises, just nihilism.
If he wins the election, “the fever may break,” he said. “My hope, my expectation, is that after the election, now that it turns out that the goal of beating Obama doesn’t make much sense because I’m not running again, that we can start getting some cooperation again.”
In his new biography, “Barack Obama: The Story,” David Maraniss writes that a roommate of the young Obama compared him to Walker Percy’s protagonist in “The Moviegoer”: an observer of his life, one step removed.
Snip
Badger52
06-05-2012, 11:08
When Maureen Dowd turns sour, the dominoes will fall.
It's a contagion; the last few weeks have seen the notoriously partisan-left Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel tip toward the incumbent Gov :eek: raking the challenger (their Mayor) over the coals for falsifying violent crime stats and taking their city to the top-tier of the USA's worst-list.
It was good enough for me to put on the Eagles' "Hell Freezes Over."
We'll see tomorrow. I don't think today will be a bellwether for November as some have said (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/06/04/why-wisconsin-matters/) but it won't hurt.
In his new book, “A Nation of Wusses,” the Democrat Ed Rendell, the former governor of Pennsylvania, wonders how “the best communicator in campaign history” lost his touch. This guy never saw President Reagan, huh?
Just saw this joke on another site, and although good for the Comedy Zone, I thought maybe more apporpriate here.
Two men were having coffee, when one of them said:
Last night, my son just walked into the living room and said, "Dad, cancel my allowance immediately, rent my room out, throw all my clothes out of the window, take my TV, stereo, iPhone, iPod, and my laptop. Please give my jewelry to the Salvation Army or Goodwill. Then sell my car. Take my front door key away from me and throw me out of the house. Then disown me and never talk to me again. And don't forget to write me out of your will and leave my share to my brother."
The other man said:" Wow, he really said that?"
"Well, he didn't put it quite that way. He actually said...
'Dad, I've decided to work for Obama's re-election campaign.
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/06/08/liberals-threaten-not-to-vote-in-november-over-disappointment-with-obama/
PROVIDENCE, R.I. (CBSDC/AP) — They are trying to be hopeful, but the Democratic Party’s most passionate voters are struggling to hide their frustration with President Barack Obama.
Republicans attack the president as a big-government liberal. Many liberals meeting Thursday at Netroots Nation — it describes the annual convention as “a giant family reunion for the left” — argue instead that Obama hasn’t fought hard enough for progressive priorities on taxes, health care and the economy.
Even more problematic for the president: With the election just five months away, some are threatening not to donate money or time or even vote in November for the man who overwhelmingly ignited their passions and captured their imaginations four years ago.
“I want to be happy with him,” said Democrat Kristine Vaughan, a 45-year-old school psychologist from Canton, Ohio. “But I am finding that he has succumbed to the corporate influence as much as everyone else. I think he has so much potential to break out of that, but overall he has been a disappointment.”
Vaughan isn’t sure whether she’ll vote for Obama a second time and probably won’t donate money as she did during his first campaign. She refuses to support Republican challenger Mitt Romney, but is considering writing in another candidate in protest.
The sentiment is not unique among the 2,700 people gathered on the first day of this three-day convention. More than a dozen liberals interviewed here indicated some level of frustration with the president, despite widespread praise for his recent decision to support gay marriage and ongoing push to scale back military action in the Middle East.
Most plan on voting for Obama and their gripes are not unlike what the White House has heard for much of the president’s term. But these left-leaning backers’ varying levels of enthusiasm could spell trouble for a president whose 2008 victory was fueled by a massive network of grass-roots volunteers and small-dollar donors. Polls show the president locked in a tight race that’s likely to be decided in several swing states where he scored narrow victories four years ago. Places like Ohio, Florida and Virginia are expected to be especially competitive, and Obama will need liberal supporters to both work on his behalf and turn out in droves on Election Day.
“He’s done a good job, but he could have done a lot better,” said Ed Tracey, 55, of Lebanon, N.H., who heads his local chapter of the group, Drinking Liberally.(LOL :D)
Tracey was one of Obama’s many small-dollar donors four years ago, but his dissatisfaction has affected his generosity: “I decided that unless I thought he really needed it, I wouldn’t contribute,” he said.
The President recently said he planned to “fight like hell” to raise more money than Romney.
Snip
According to the Prez its the public sector thats suffering because states and cities are not getting the kind of support from the feds that they have become accustomed to. Gotta get em some of them "Obama dollars." Darn those nasty republicans for holding up this funding. I love that Obama ad that attacks Romney for putting MA. in such terrible debt during his term in office there, under O's watch the USA is racking up $4,000,000,000.00 in debt every day thats FOUR BILLION dollars.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/09/barack-obama-remarks-private-sector
"Barack Obama declared on Friday that "the private sector is doing fine," drawing instant criticism from Republicans who said it showed a lack of understanding of the nation's economic woes. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney responded, "Is he really that out of touch?"
Reacting to the Republican attack, the president later sought to clarify his remarks, saying that it was "absolutely clear that the economy is not doing fine." He said that while there had been some "good momentum" in the private sector, public sector growth lagged behind, making it imperative that Congress act on his proposals to boost state and local government jobs.
It was the latest episode in a week of difficult turns for Obama's re-election prospects, including last Friday's report that the unemployment rate had risen slightly to 8.2% in May as job creation had slowed, and new signs that the European debt crisis was hurting the US economy.
The furore over Obama's remarks on the private sector overshadowed his wider message at a White House news conference. Accusing Republicans of pursuing policies that would weaken the economy, Obama urged passage of legislation that he said would create jobs, and that Republicans have long blocked.
The president said that if Congress had passed his jobs bill from last year, "we'd be on track to have a million more Americans working this year, the unemployment rate would be lower, our economy would be stronger."
"Of course Congress refused to pass this jobs plan in full," he said. "They left most of the jobs plan just sitting there, and in light of the headwinds we are facing right now I urge them to reconsider because there are steps we can take right now."
The president said businesses had created 4.3m jobs during the past 27 months.
"The private sector is doing fine," Obama said. Economic weakness is coming from state and local government, with job cuts initiated by "governors or mayors who are not getting the kind of help that they have in the past from the federal government and who don't have the same kind of flexibility as the federal government in dealing with fewer revenues coming in."
Romney, holding a campaign event in Iowa, said Obama's remark was "defining what it means to be detached and out of touch with the American people." He said the comment "is going to go down in history as an extraordinary miscalculation and misunderstanding."
But while "doing fine" is in the eye of the beholder, Obama was correct that the job picture in the private sector is brighter than in the public sector. Since the recession officially ended in June 2009, private companies have added 3.1m jobs. Largely because of cuts at the state and local level, governments have slashed 601,000 jobs over the same period. According to the government, corporate profits have risen 58% since mid-2009.
Even so, by historical standards, private job gains in the last three months have been weak after such a deep recession.
Obama pressed Congress to enact parts of his jobs agenda, including proposals to help state governments rehire teachers, police officers and firefighters.
"I cannot give you a good reason why Congress would not act on these items other than politics," Obama said after being asked to respond to the Republican criticism.
Yet his comments about the strength of private sector hiring were bound to be replayed in television ads meant to discredit his message on the economy, the top issue for voters.
Seconds after Obama made the remark, Republicans circulated the quote on Twitter and Romney seized on it about an hour later after meeting farmers.
Behind the scenes, Romney aides worked furiously to push what they hope could be a shift in the campaign. Many remember four years ago, when Republican nominee John McCain asserted that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong" in the midst of a meltdown. Obama's team went after McCain then and voters were left wondering what the Republican was thinking.
Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said Obama had taken office "in the midst of a severe economic crisis and fought back against that to the point where businesses have now created more than 4.3m private sector jobs. The president has always been clear that we need to do more than recover from the recession."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/14/romney-slams-obama-as-bad-for-business-as-candidates-give-dueling-addresses/
Battling toe-to-toe for the first time, Mitt Romney leap-frogged President Obama in dueling economic speeches Thursday to Ohio voters, and ripped his opponent's record on jobs growth and an American economy stuck in neutral.
The president, countering in an economic address of his own moments later, claimed that Romney's economic prescriptions would signal a return to policies that set the stage for the 2008 financial crisis and subsequent recession. He suggested Romney's policies would mirror those of the George W. Bush administration.
The two speeches in one of the most critical of battleground states -- with Romney speaking from Cincinnati, and Obama from Cleveland -- marked the closest thing yet to a general election debate. Each candidate described the other as disastrous for the country's economic future.
In Cincinnati, Romney preempted the president after initially being scheduled to begin his speech a few minutes after Obama. Instead, Romney started early -- getting the jump on the president's speech to offer his own rebuttal in advance.
Romney said Obama was delivering the economic address "because he hasn't delivered a recovery for the economy."
"He's going to be a person of eloquence as he describes his plans for making the economy better, but don't forget -- he's been president for three and a half years, and talk is cheap. Action speaks very loud," he said.
Romney accused Obama of pushing policies that are bad for business. "Let's go through them one by one," he said. "Failed stimulus; ObamaCare resulted in fewer hires; Dodd-Frank hurt banks' ability to lend, especially to small businesses; failed energy policy."
Romney outlined a three-point plan of what he'd do first if elected -- improve domestic energy production, get rid of the health care overhaul and reduce the deficit.
Obama, in his address, spoke to his goals for a second term in broad strokes. He did not offer new jobs proposals, but stressed what he described as fundamental differences between his vision and that of the Republicans.
Obama accused Romney and congressional Republicans of policies of less regulation and lower taxes for the wealthy that would repeat what he effectively described as a failed experiment.
"It would push us deeper into recession and make the recovery slower," Obama said. "We've tried this. ... Their policies did not grow the economy.
"Why would we think that they would work better this time?" he asked.
Obama said he wants to devote a second term to improving education, clean energy and infrastructure and reforming the tax code in a "balanced" way. (lol)
Snip
greenberetTFS
06-17-2012, 12:27
Romney: Politics "a big part" of Obama immigration policy........:(
http://landing.newsinc.com/shared/video.html?freewheel=91074&sitesection=breitbartgovernment_nws_non_sec&VID=23641887
Mitt Romney speaks with CBS News Chief Washington Correspondent Bob Schieffer about President Obama's executive order on illegal immigration and says politics was "a big part of the equation" in the president's decision.........:eek:
Big Teddy :munchin
ZonieDiver
06-17-2012, 12:47
Romney: Politics "a big part" of Obama immigration policy........:(
http://landing.newsinc.com/shared/video.html?freewheel=91074&sitesection=breitbartgovernment_nws_non_sec&VID=23641887
Mitt Romney speaks with CBS News Chief Washington Correspondent Bob Schieffer about President Obama's executive order on illegal immigration and says politics was "a big part of the equation" in the president's decision.........:eek:
Big Teddy :munchin
I watched that this morning. (Bob S. should retire... and take Plante with him.) I wish someone would compare Romney's speaking performance in this interview with a recent speech - the "private sector's fine" speech comes to mind - or interview of the POTUS. "The Great Speaker" seems to becoming "stumble, fumble, and mumble!"
Last hard class
06-18-2012, 18:07
And it's only June.:D
http://helenair.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/gop-convention-features-obama-library-outhouse-with-painted-on-bullet/article_f95dd9c0-b840-11e1-affe-0019bb2963f4.html
LHC
Badger52
06-19-2012, 06:28
And it's only June.:DThe USSS probably have a UAV over it right now.
The USSS probably have a UAV over it right now.
Why - are there a lot of hookers in Montana?
Scratch two potential VP picks.
Rubio is not being vetted, according to sources.
Daniels will be the next President of Purdue University.
Badger52
06-19-2012, 12:21
Why - are there a lot of hookers in Montana?Alas, this is why you are MR2 and I am not. <headslap>
I was thinking about the offended sensibilities of those whose "contact info" was already plastered inside the structure (as well as the bullet holes).
Badger52
06-19-2012, 12:27
Scratch two potential VP picks.Grist for the mill; since the Janesville photo-op my sources in the hankie-wringing community in Madison are speculating Ryan. For some reason that thought has them running like wildebeest to the river...
MOO, Ryan has better uses than as a VP anyway.
Grist for the mill; since the Janesville photo-op my sources in the hankie-wringing community in Madison are speculating Ryan. For some reason that thought has them running like wildebeest to the river...
MOO, Ryan has better uses than as a VP anyway.
Agreed, I think if offered he wouldn't take it. He is of much better use in the House than as the VP, IMO.
Agreed, I think if offered he wouldn't take it. He is of much better use in the House than as the VP, IMO.
Concur.
It feels good to not give a shit who Romney's VP's gonna be, though. :)
Concur.
It feels good to not give a shit who Romney's VP's gonna be, though. :)
Agreed. After Biden, it would take alot to raise anyone's eyebrows.
I think Senator Patrick Toomey of Pennsylvania would be a solid pick. He is a bit more conservative than Romney (and thus would do a better job of energizing the tea party/Christian base), and could potentially make the Keystone State more competitive. :lifter
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/06/marco-rubio-vice-president-/1?loc=interstitialskip#.T-D5NdXNkYI
Mitt Romney told reporters in Michigan that Florida Sen. Marco Rubio is being looked at as his possible running mate, adding that a news story out today about the Tea Party favorite not being vetted was "entirely false."
"Marco Rubio is being thoroughly vetted as part of our process," Romney said during a campaign stop in Holland, Mich.
Snip
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/06/marco-rubio-vice-president-/1?loc=interstitialskip#.T-D5NdXNkYI
Mitt Romney told reporters in Michigan that Florida Sen. Marco Rubio is being looked at as his possible running mate, adding that a news story out today about the Tea Party favorite not being vetted was "entirely false."
"Marco Rubio is being thoroughly vetted as part of our process," Romney said during a campaign stop in Holland, Mich.
Snip
Rubio works for me! I trust the Romney camp will make the best decision after a thorough review...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/2012-isnt-2008/2012/06/19/gJQADqUFoV_blog.html
An excellent article by Jennifer Rubin (even if it is from the Washington Post!). O is running a very lousy campaign at this point and will lose unless Romney trips up or the economy miraculously resurges...:munchin
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/2012-isnt-2008/2012/06/19/gJQADqUFoV_blog.html
An excellent article by Jennifer Rubin (even if it is from the Washington Post!). O is running a very lousy campaign at this point and will lose unless Romney trips up or the economy miraculously resurges...:munchin
The economy will miraculously resurge soon after Romneyfication.
Capital will be unleashed. :)
Sorry, but what does Rubio bring to the table except a more enhanced version of Obama's resume. Private sector experience? Military experience?
Romney has private sector and governmental executive experience. He needs someone to help fill in his own resume...military and national defense experience. LTC West fits the bill. And, he can help deliver the same state as Rubio.
But, you say, he has baggage. Yeah, well, Mother Teresa would be compared to the Whore of Babylon by the left, so bring it! He can take it. I'm not sure Rubio can.
Just saying...
Pat
Badger52
06-20-2012, 04:54
Romney has private sector and governmental executive experience. He needs someone to help fill in his own resume...military and national defense experience. LTC West fits the bill. And, he can help deliver the same state as Rubio.A perk would be having someone who could actually travel to foreign lands, in the typical POTUS-fill-in roles that the VP does, and hold their own in an articulate fashion and do so without notes, thinking on their feet rather than shoving them in their mouth.
Sorry, but what does Rubio bring to the table except a more enhanced version of Obama's resume. Private sector experience? Military experience?
Romney has private sector and governmental executive experience. He needs someone to help fill in his own resume...military and national defense experience. LTC West fits the bill. And, he can help deliver the same state as Rubio.
But, you say, he has baggage. Yeah, well, Mother Teresa would be compared to the Whore of Babylon by the left, so bring it! He can take it. I'm not sure Rubio can.
Just saying...
Pat
Very well done Pat. You make excellent points. Of all the "freshman" legislators that have become popular with the Conservative, TEA, and/or GOP groupings, only Rep. Allen West has the depth, breadth, and life experiences to move so quickly into leadership positions. In my opinion.
But then... we have politics and getting elected. The reason this handful of freshman politicians are popular with the above grouping is because they are saying the popular things with these groups. And what is good for politics is not always good for leadership or accomplishment.
Don't get me wrong, I like each one of these candidates and what them on our country's leadership team working somewhere. I just don't trust politicians in general and I'd like to see more history and vetting of these freshman.
Personally, I'd like to see Se. Rubio or Paul as President of the Senate and Rep. West as Speaker of the House. LTC West has demonstrated leadership ability, mission accomplishment, and the speaking savvy to do a better job for this Republic.
Don't get me wrong, I like each one of these candidates and what them on our country's leadership team working somewhere. I just don't trust politicians in general and I'd like to see more history and vetting of these freshman.
Personally, I'd like to see Se. Rubio or Paul as President of the Senate and Rep. West as Speaker of the House. LTC West has demonstrated leadership ability, mission accomplishment, and the speaking savvy to do a better job for this Republic.
That sounds good, too.
We still have a political ambush or two to go through-which the Dems are prolly briefing back to the Chief Stringpuller-right about now.
The economy will miraculously resurge soon after Romneyfication.
Capital will be unleashed. :)
Whatever is unleashed, it will be better than the failed experiment of the last four years ;). And Bloomberg released a poll today that surprisingly has Obama up by 13 nationally....which is bit odd considering Rasmussen (which I trust more) also released a poll that has Romney up by 2. I'm guessing Bloomberg only surveyed people in the inner city of Chicago, New York, and San Francisco. :D
Some background info on Mitt .....
Personal Information:
· His full Name is: Willard Mitt Romney
· He was Born: March 12, 1947 and is 65 years old.
· His Father: George W. Romney, former Governor of the State of Michigan
· He was Raised in: Bloomfield Hills , Michigan
· He is Married to: Ann Romney since 1969; they have five children
· Education: B.A. from Brigham Young University , J.D. and M.B.A. from Harvard University
· Religion: Mormon – The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints
Working Background:
· After high school, he spent 30 months in France as a Mormon missionary.
· After going to both Harvard Business School and Harvard Law School simultaneously, he passed the Michigan bar, but never worked as an attorney.
· In 1984, he co-founded Bain Capital a private equity investment firm, one of the largest such firms in the United States .
· In 1994, he ran for Senator of Massachusetts and lost to Ted Kennedy.
· He was President and C.E.O. of the 2002 Winter Olympic Games.
· In 2002, he was elected Governor of the State of Massachusetts where he eliminated a 1.5 billion deficit.
Some Interesting Fact about Romney:
· Bain Capital, starting with one small office supply store in Massachusetts , turned it into Staples; now over 2,000 stores employing 90,000 people.
· Bain Capital also worked to perform the same kinds of business miracles again and again, with companies like Domino's, Sealy, Brookstone, Weather Channel, Burger King, Warner Music Group, Dollarama, Home Depot Supply, and many others.
· He was an unpaid volunteer campaign worker for his dad's gubernatorial campaign 1 year.
· He was an unpaid intern in his dad’s governor’s office for eight years.
· He was an unpaid bishop and stake president of his church for ten years. The stories of his personal involvement in helping others, as well as his annual gifts to charities continue to be impressive.
· He was an unpaid President of the Salt Lake Olympic Committee for three years. He stepped in to take over a troubled Organizing Committee and oversaw the making of the the Games successful. (A very complex task, accomplished because of his leadership and experience in working with people for a common goal.)
· He took no salary and was the unpaid Governor of Massachusetts for four years.
· He gave his entire inheritance from his father to charity.
· Mitt Romney is one of the wealthiest self-made men in our country but has given more back to its citizens in terms of money, service and time than most men. (In fact, it's difficult to find another man even close in this respect!)
Mitt Romney is Trustworthy:
· He will show us his birth certificate
· He will show us his high school and college transcripts.
· He will show us his social security card.
· He will show us his law degree.
· He will show us his draft notice.
· He will show us his medical records.
· He will show us his income tax records.
· He will show us he has nothing to hide.
Mitt Romney’s background, experience and trustworthiness show him to be a great leader and an excellent President of the United States .
Romney is going to have a difficult time bringing the Obama Care argument to the floor......it's a big boat anchor around his neck.
But a spokesman for Romney on Monday said the former Massachusetts governor agrees with Obama that the individual mandate is a penalty or a fine, rather than a tax.
Both the healthcare ruling and the conflicting statements highlight the trouble Romney has in going after the president on healthcare. As governor of Massachusetts, Romney instituted a healthcare law that includes an individual mandate, and at the time, he too portrayed it as a penalty or a fine, rather than a tax.
“The governor believes what we put in place in Massachusetts was a penalty and he disagrees with the court’s ruling that the mandate was a tax.”
http://thehill.com/video/campaign/235855-romney-team-agrees-with-obama-mandate-not-a-tax
Romney is going to have a difficult time bringing the Obama Care argument to the floor......it's a big boat anchor around his neck.
http://thehill.com/video/campaign/235855-romney-team-agrees-with-obama-mandate-not-a-tax
Don't forget- Romney's damn near as socialistic as Obama.
He still has the main thang going for him, though-he's not Obama.
Badger52
07-03-2012, 06:20
Don't forget- Romney's damn near as socialistic as Obama.
He still has the main thang going for him, though-he's not Obama.Right now not being Obama is the only thing he's got going for him. He & his handlers better drink some tea with the mainstream, or the circular firing squad this year will be at Tampa, vice Charlotte. Handing Pelosi another 3.2sec of facetime is not something they need to be doing when the other side is busy growing their electorate. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/2/obamas-amnesty-edict-set-in-motion/)
If Romney isn't going to play the "it's a tax" party line then he needs to get more vehement that it's the disgusting thievery that it is. 'Course that's all political rhetoric to the campaigns' goal, one way or another. The only way that stuff might influence my vote is...
-he's not Obama.
I wonder how many people have actually thought about, in the end, for real, what happens when someone says, "I'm not going to pay that penalty." Play that movie to the end.
I wonder how many people have actually thought about, in the end, for real, what happens when someone says, "I'm not going to pay that penalty." Play that movie to the end.
The Government can't let that happen, the moment one person gets away with it they could have a William Wallace moment on their hands.
So they will audit you to death, Trial by MSM, Freeze your assets, Pressure your employer, etc. To avoid that, the Government will spend billions on PSA propaganda to sell us on the benefits of the scam so that we will willingly pay into the scam.
If all else fails to achieve the desired results, they send in the troops (DHS, FBI, JTTF, BATFE, Etc.) shut down the town and lay siege on the individual or group.
[/I]http://news.yahoo.com/poll-romney-claims-slight-edge-15-battleground-states-164545408.html;_ylt=A2KLOzGP5vJPnRUA.Q3QtDMD
President Obama remains marginally ahead of Mitt Romney in a new national CNN/ORC International poll released on Monday, although Romney leads Obama in the 15 states identified by the network as battleground states.
Obama leads Romney nationally, 49 percent to 46 percent, with 4 percent of those surveyed saying they would vote for another candidate or neither candidate. That is inside the poll's margin of error, and it is identical to the 49 percent to 46 percent lead Obama had in the previous poll, conducted in late May. It is also similar to the latest Gallup tracking poll, which shows Obama leading Romney by 5 percentage points, the president's high-water mark from a survey house that has been less favorable to him thus far during the campaign. That lead among registered voters is Obama's largest in Gallup since April.
However, in the 15 states CNN calls its battleground states — Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin — Romney leads Obama, 51 percent to 43 percent. Notably, though, the CNN/ORC International group includes three states thought to be comfortably in the Romney column this cycle: Arizona, Indiana, and Missouri.
I wouldn't trust any poles put out by CNN. The report is probably very biased. The problem is there are many liberals watching that network. If any were on the fence before and given the supposeed passage of health care, they might buy into this illusion of a momentum buildup for Obama.
I wouldn't trust any poles put out by CNN. The report is probably very biased. The problem is there are many liberals watching that network. If any were on the fence before and given the supposeed passage of health care, they might buy into this illusion of a momentum buildup for Obama.
51 to 43 reads like momentum for Mitt, to me.
If Romney isn't going to play the "it's a tax" party line then he needs to get more vehement that it's the disgusting thievery that it is. 'Course that's all political rhetoric to the campaigns' goal, one way or another.
Is health care reform the key issue for Romney or just one among many? According to Gallup, most Americans seem to think the latter <<LINK (http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/rigsbrql3u61r08zvh58ma.gif)>>.
51 to 43 reads like momentum for Mitt, to me.
That it does, QP Dusty. I read that, but misinterpreted that part of the article.:(
I still might tend to think that many of the libs might focus on the national numbers indicating overall favorability, and wouldn't be surprised if in a later poll the numbers in battleground states is reported as closing by CNN. Just my opinion.
That it does, QP Dusty. I read that, but misinterpreted that part of the article.:(
I still might tend to think that many of the libs might focus on the national numbers indicating overall favorability, and wouldn't be surprised if in a later poll the numbers in battleground states is reported as closing by CNN. Just my opinion.
I think if the election were held today, Rummy would win by as many as 8 electoral points, and with a huge popular margin.
With ChiTown politics though, 4 months is a long time to pull some drastic shit.
I think if the election were held today, Rummy would win by as many as 8 electoral points, and with a huge popular margin.
With ChiTown politics though, 4 months is a long time to pull some drastic shit.
Already seems like 4 months is going to crawl by at a snails pace. Can't get here soon enough.
Badger52
07-04-2012, 15:11
So they will audit you to death, Trial by MSM, Freeze your assets, Pressure your employer, etc. To avoid that, the Government will spend billions on PSA propaganda to sell us on the benefits of the scam so that we will willingly pay into the scam.
If all else fails to achieve the desired results, they send in the troops (DHS, FBI, JTTF, BATFE, Etc.) shut down the town and lay siege on the individual or group.Gettin' there, yup. None of which, including their prelude, seem to be regarded as "intolerable acts."
:rolleyes:
Is health care reform the key issue for Romney or just one among many? According to Gallup, most Americans seem to think the latter <<LINK (http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/rigsbrql3u61r08zvh58ma.gif)>>.Of course it's one of many, but the man is asking to be President of the United States. (I don't revise my standards to jive with my annually-lowered expectations from politicians.)
Here's a question about Romney:
Why does he choose NOT to attack the partnership of President Obama with John Corzine?
For those unaware of John Corzine he is:
Former CEO Goldman Sachs
Former US Senator for NJ
Former Governor NJ
Former CEO of MF Global
MF Global imploded and $1.6 billion of customer funds were misappropriated with John Corzine at the helm.
John Corzine is a top campaign finance bundler for President Obama.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/04/21/corzine_amid_scandal_is_among_obamas_top_bundlers. html
Jon Corzine is “the smartest guy I know in terms of the economy,” Vice President Joe Biden said not so long ago. President Obama praised Corzine as a key architect of the “national recovery plan” he implemented after taking office back in 2009.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/06/06/jon-corzine-clueless-or-crook/
Wouldn't any candidate go for this obvious political jugular like a starving hyena?
Why is the Romney campaign so noticeably quiet on this topic? <----unless I've missed the dialogue on it.
During President Bush's Administration he was crucified for links to "his buddies" at Enron/Worldcom/etc.
Last time I checked they all went to jail.
My concern is that the Romney campaign may be quiet on this topic as it risks counterattack(if Romney is campaign finance dirty as well) and could open up a closet chocker full of special interest campaign finance skeletons for both parties....making it a lose-lose for both parties and a gentleman's agreement to avoid this topic.
If there's any validity to my argument, does that not indicate a potentially far deeper and more insidious problem with the US political process being political theatre for the masses with special interests hedging their bets and pulling strings with both parties?
I certainly hope the investigation against Corzine is able to be conducted without political interference.
I certainly hope I'm proved wrong and that the Obama Campaign/Corzine partnership is attacked with fire....and that whether innocent or guilty, justice is fairly served in this case.
I'd really like to be proved wrong that the political process has NOT been hijacked.
But I'm not particularly hopeful.
While I'm an eternal glass half full optimist, when it comes to a polluted political process I'm fast becoming glass half empty.
Just my 0.02c, and keen to read the opinions of others.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/07/business/economy/unemployment-report-for-june.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
It is increasingly apparent what the economy will look like when President Obama faces voters in November: pretty much what it looks like today.
“America can do better,” Mitt Romney said in New Hampshire on Friday.
And that picture, a report from the Labor Department made clear on Friday, is far from the booming job growth that prevailed only a few months ago. In June, the economy added a meager 80,000 jobs, and the unemployment rate remained at 8.2 percent.
Early this year, optimists buzzed that the jobless rate might touch below 8 percent by the election, a milestone that would be a major symbolic victory for the incumbent. Then employment growth slowed in March and took a turn toward the paltry in April and May.
With Friday’s report, what looked like a blip has now become a streak. And with a gridlocked Congress unlikely to pass any additional stimulus measures before the election, the president is stuck again with an economy in stall mode.
June’s job growth, after a revised increase of 77,000 in May, was just about enough to keep up with population growth, but not nearly enough to reduce the backlog of 13 million unemployed workers.
Economists have scaled back their expectations for the rest of the year and are now forecasting continued sluggishness.
“This economy has no forward momentum and little help from monetary or fiscal policy,” said Kathy Bostjancic, director of macroeconomic analysis for the Conference Board. “As if that were not enough, ill winds are blowing in from both a contracting Europe and slowing growth in emerging markets.”
Friday’s report also put a chill on financial markets, sending stocks sharply lower on both sides of the Atlantic.
At a campaign stop in Poland, Ohio, on Friday, Mr. Obama urged voters to take the long view, and to be mindful of the economic state he inherited.
“I want to get back to a time when middle-class families and those working to get into the middle class have some basic security,” he said. “We’ve got to deal with what’s been happening over the last decade, the last 15 years.”
Mr. Romney, on the other hand, emphasized the more recent string of weak job growth that has taken place under Mr. Obama’s leadership.
“This is a time for Americans to choose whether they want more of the same,” Mr. Romney said from Wolfeboro, N.H., where he is vacationing. “It doesn’t have to be this way. America can do better. And this kick in the gut has to end.”
The recent string of weak employment growth may work to political advantage for Mr. Romney.
From December through February, private companies added an average of 252,000 workers a month. But job growth slowed in March, leading some economists to wonder whether the unseasonably warm winter, rather than a fundamentally healthier economy, had been the real source of the short-lived employment surge.
“The net of it is not as if the economy is collapsing, but it wasn’t really as strong as it looked in December, January and February,” said Jim O’Sullivan, United States economist at High Frequency Economics.
The numbers themselves are also adjusted by season, and these adjustments themselves can be imprecise and open to interpretation.
By June, in any case, the payback from the unusually warm winter should have faded, indicating that the slowdown may reflect more serious underlying problems in the economy, Mr. O’Sullivan said.
One of the few industries with decent job growth was temporary help services, suggesting that employers were not confident enough of the recovery’s sustainability to invest in permanent hires even if their order books were currently growing.
Among the few bright spots in Friday’s report were ticks upward in average hourly earnings (to $23.50, from $23.44 in May) and the length of the typical private sector workweek (34.5 hours, from 34.4). Still, the overall weakness in the report may have nudged Federal Reserve officials toward additional monetary stimulus.
“The odds of QE3 happening before the election are clearly going up,” said Jay Feldman, an economist at Credit Suisse, referring to the nickname for a third round of stimulus known as quantitative easing.
The Fed has been reluctant to inject more money partly because it has been hard to determine whether additional monetary stimulus is either effective or even needed.
Since the recovery officially began in June 2009, there have been several spates of promising job growth, which raised hopes of a strengthening recovery that were ultimately dashed. Each time economists attributed the hiring slowdown to one-time negative shocks, including last year’s tsunami in Japan and the Arab Spring uprisings.
A healthier economy might have been able to withstand such shocks easily, but not one weakened by a debt overhang and a sea of underwater homes.
“At this point, expectations are pretty low, so anything that is moving the job market in the right direction would be welcome,” said Sophia Koropeckyj, managing director at Moody’s Analytics.
Economists worry that even modest acceleration in job growth could be derailed by additional shocks both abroad and at home.
Corporate profits fell in the first quarter of 2012, the first decline since 2008, the Commerce Department reported last week. The overall drop was entirely because of falling profits abroad. While there are challenges across the developing world, including China, the primary foreign drag on the American economy is still coming from Europe’s protracted sovereign debt crisis.
“When you factor in the effect on U.S. trade, financial markets and credit availability, the Europe crisis is probably taking a percentage point off of U.S. growth,” Andrew Tilton, a senior United States economist at Goldman Sachs, said of Europe’s impact on America’s gross domestic product.
There are plenty of homegrown risks, too.
Struggling local governments have been shedding workers. There was a brief respite in June, but economists generally seem to expect the layoffs to pick up again for the rest of the year.
Under current law, the end of 2012 will also bring a torrent of federal tax increases as the Bush tax cuts and temporary payroll tax reductions expire. The government is also scheduled to lop off a huge chunk of federal spending because of measures set in motion by Congress’s inability last December to come up with plans for longer-term fiscal restructuring.
In addition to those components of the so-called fiscal cliff, the federal extension for unemployment benefits ends this year, meaning that, in most states, newly unemployed workers will receive no more than 26 weeks of jobless benefits, according to the National Employment Law Project.
Without extended jobless benefits, unemployed workers will have less disposable income, cutting their spending, and reducing employers’ need to hire more workers.
“A lot of companies are not too clear about how all these policy issues are going to affect their bottom line,” Ms. Koropeckyj said. “Ultimately, demand determines what companies are going to do in the longer run in terms of hiring. But in the short run, companies are going to try to hold off as much hiring as long as possible.”
In other words, until Romneyfication.
Snip
I still believe Romney needs some work on actually energizing the electorate, rather than this merely being a referendum on Obama. But IF we continue with this unemployment mess (which seems likely), that might not be as necessary...
[QUOTE=cjwils3;457382]I still believe Romney needs some work on actually energizing the electorate, rather than this merely being a referendum on Obama. /QUOTE]
Voting Obama out should be sufficient to energize the electorate to the f.cking max.
Let us hope there are enough voters in the "battleground" states that agree. ;)
Let us hope there are enough voters in the "battleground" states that agree. ;)
Right. Some states contain hordes of "progressive" idiots who are incapable of cogent thought.
greenberetTFS
07-07-2012, 15:31
Let's have it for "Dusty for VP"........;) I can see it now,former Green Beret running for VP,by the time it was posted is when the guys from other SF Blogs would jump on it to see if he's a poser...:D
Big Teddy :munchin
Let's have it for "Dusty for VP"........;) I can see it now,former Green Beret running for VP,by the time it was posted is when the guys from other SF Blogs would jump on it to see if he's a poser...:D
Big Teddy :munchin
I can't take the pay cut, Bro. :D
Lol, they're even stretching over at the HuffPo to find accomplishment for this guy...maybe Oprah can help, oh that's right, she has met the underside of that bus, too.
However, he did name two Supreme Court justices - IMO, a negative accomplishment - but one that will be with us for decades.
From the HuffPo by David Boaz:
"As he runs for re-election, President Obama wants to point to his accomplishments in office. Trouble is, he's having trouble identifying them.
He killed Osama bin Laden, for sure. But after that..."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-boaz/obamas-accomplishments_b_1654836.html
Lol, they're even stretching over at the HuffPo to find accomplishment for this guy...maybe Oprah can help, oh that's right, she has met the underside of that bus, too.
However, he did name two Supreme Court justices - IMO, a negative accomplishment - but one that will be with us for decades.
From the HuffPo by David Boaz:
"As he runs for re-election, President Obama wants to point to his accomplishments in office. Trouble is, he's having trouble identifying them.
He killed Osama bin Laden, for sure. But after that..."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-boaz/obamas-accomplishments_b_1654836.html
I'm just waiting for the day the lib press dogpiles Obama and starts touting Hilarious Clinton for POTUS.
ZonieDiver
07-07-2012, 21:53
I'm just waiting for the day the lib press dogpiles Obama and starts touting Hilarious Clinton for POTUS.
Nope! Billy Clinton is going to continue sabotaging O's campaign (damning with faint praise) to help Mitt win! The economy is going to suck for the next four years, it's only a matter of degree as to how bad the economy will be. IF O is re-elected - with the worsened tanking he will cause, an R will for sure be elected in 2016 - for 4, probably 8 years. That'll put Hillary outside her 'Presidential window'... so, her chance is: oust Obama and put in Romney, the economy doesn't improve (and probably worsens - Europe), and in 2016, Hillary rides to the rescue (with Bill... the only 'surplus' POTUS in a lonnnnng time in the background).
You heard it hear first!
Nope! Billy Clinton is going to continue sabotaging O's campaign (damning with faint praise) to help Mitt win! The economy is going to suck for the next four years, it's only a matter of degree as to how bad the economy will be. IF O is re-elected - with the worsened tanking he will cause, an R will for sure be elected in 2016 - for 4, probably 8 years. That'll put Hillary outside her 'Presidential window'... so, her chance is: oust Obama and put in Romney, the economy doesn't improve (and probably worsens - Europe), and in 2016, Hillary rides to the rescue (with Bill... the only 'surplus' POTUS in a lonnnnng time in the background).
You heard it hear first!
Do you have any idea how much capital is being withheld until Romney takes office? Unemployment will go below 7 percent in the first FQ.
This Country can't last until 2016 with a statist in power.
Do you have any idea how much capital is being withheld until Romney takes office? Unemployment will go below 7 percent in the first FQ.
This Country can't last until 2016 with a statist in power.
Back in 2009 I was told it is 'more than you can imagine'. And that these movers and shakers have put these vast sums on hold, they aren't going to expand and they aren't going to hire until they know what is going on and where we are headed. And if Obama gets another 4 years they will be gone, close the doors or find friendlier business environments for operations.
Romney needs to better get with the program, he is making gaffes that he shouldn't.
lol Gaffe? This is a gaffe:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/10/obama-threatens-veto-bill-combining-tax-cuts-for-middle-class-top-earners/#ixzz20CRsVyC8
President Obama is threatening to veto any legislation that extends all the tax cuts set to expire at the end of the year, as he presses Congress to extend those cuts only for families whose yearly income is less than $250,000 -- and raises taxes on everyone earning more.
The veto threat sets the early tone for what is expected to be a contentious battle between Democrats and Republicans through the rest of the year as they seek to avoid the so-called "taxmageddon" -- the sudden increase in taxes on all Americans that will occur if Congress doesn't vote to extend some or all of the Bush-era tax rates.
The president, amid charges of class warfare, urged Congress to pass a bill that deals with the middle-class tax rates only
Snip
I personally don't believe the jet ski thing is a big deal. It's not like he is president and playing golf every two weeks, or flying all over the world, or having concerts, all at the expense of our tax dollars.
I personally don't believe the jet ski thing is a big deal. It's not like he is president and playing golf every two weeks, or flying all over the world, or having concerts, all at the expense of our tax dollars.
Obama's playing to the crowd who doesn't have to pay for cellphones, food, housing, etc. They're for him, but if they're not motivated enough to work to improve their stations in life, IMO they're not motivated enough to turn off the judge show, get off their asses, go to the booth and vote this time. Obama's stash never materialized, so they no longer picture a cash cow.
His strategy to sway women failed with all but the most ardent femlibs, and I'm telling you, women are as key in this election as much as they have been going back to Susan B.
If 8-10 percent more of the population were on the dole, Obama would have this thing aced. He's doing his best to get there with the Food Stamp parties and shit, but he won't quite make it.
God help the Country if we ever allow this kind of communist bullshit to happen again.
That is where all the dead folks casting ballots come into play, along with no voter i.d. crap. I think more damage is on the way; he still has a few more months to drive it in a little more and twist. He won't bow out gracefully.
Do you have any idea how much capital is being withheld until Romney takes office? Unemployment will go below 7 percent in the first FQ.
This Country can't last until 2016 with a statist in power.
I agree with this.
Had a conversation with a customer, small business owner originally born in PR, he absolutely hates the big zero and said He's hoping to hire again after the election.
Badger52
07-10-2012, 18:48
He won't bow out gracefully.Several opinion pieces I read today happen to agree. As pampered & shielded from any real need to demonstrate competence (at anything), he has no experience or frame of reference that lets him accept "no, you're done." And he has the Court of Sycophants whispering in his ear.
greenberetTFS
07-11-2012, 13:30
That's it....... I've heard enough about "O"s negative posts......... Here is a guy,humble as he is trying to get the best plans out to you guys/gals and all of you keep giving him is your shit........ He's given you obama care,lifted the gay rules for service,took complete responsibility for the successful assassination of OBL,wants no taxes for the poor making less than 250K,and shows his deep respect for our flag.........And you people are still not bitching,sounds like your a little ungrateful to me........ Being "humble" as he is just isn't good enough for you is it?........:mad:
Big Teddy
...a few more negatives...
If Romney had a fair shake with the MSM this election would be over before it starts.
Investor's Business Daily
July 10, 2012
Thomas Sowell
Anyone who wants to study the tricks of propaganda rhetoric has a rich source of examples in the statements of President Barack Obama.
On Monday, for example, he said that Republicans "believe that prosperity comes from the top down, so that if we spend trillions more on tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, that that will somehow unleash jobs and economic growth."
Let us begin with the word "spend." Is the government "spending" money on people whenever it does not tax them as much as it can? Such convoluted reasoning would never pass muster if the mainstream media were not so determined to see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil when it comes to Barack Obama.
Ironically, actual spending by the Obama administration for the benefit of its political allies, such as the teachers' unions, is not called spending but "investment." You can say anything if you have your own private language.
But let's go back to the notion of "spending" money on "the wealthiest Americans." The people he is talking about are not the wealthiest Americans. Income is not wealth — and the whole tax controversy is about income taxes. Wealth is what you have accumulated, and wealth is not taxed, except when you die and the government collects an inheritance tax from your heirs.
People over 65 years of age have far more wealth than people in their 30s and 40s — but lower incomes.
If Obama wants to talk about raising income taxes, let him talk about it, but claiming that he wants to tax "the wealthiest Americans" is a lie and an emotional distraction for propaganda purposes.
The really big lie — and one that no amount of hard evidence or logic seems to make a dent in — is that those who oppose raising taxes on higher incomes simply want people with higher incomes to have more money, in hopes that some of their prosperity will "trickle down" to the rest of the people.
Some years ago, a challenge was issued in this column to name any economist, outside of an insane asylum, who had ever said any such thing. Not one example has yet been received, whether among economists or anyone else. Someone is always claiming that somebody else said it, but no one has ever been able to name and quote that somebody else.
Once we have put aside the lies and the convoluted use of words, what are we left with? Not much.
Obama is claiming that the government can get more tax revenue by raising the tax rate on people with higher incomes. It sounds plausible, and that may be enough for some people, but the hard facts make it a very iffy proposition.
This issue has been fought out in the United States in several administrations — both Democratic and Republican. It has also been fought out in other countries.
What is the real argument of those who want to prevent taxes from rising above a certain percentage, even for people with high incomes? It has nothing to do with making them more prosperous so that their prosperity will "trickle down."
Kennedy's Clarity
A Democratic president — John F. Kennedy — stated the issue plainly. Under the existing tax rates, he explained, investors' "efforts to avoid tax liabilities" made them put their money in tax shelters, because existing tax laws made "certain types of less-productive activity more profitable than other more valuable undertakings" for the country.
Ironically, the Obama campaign's attacks on Mitt Romney for putting his money in the Cayman Islands substantiate the point that President Kennedy and others have made, that higher tax rates can drive money into tax shelters, whether tax-exempt municipal bonds or investments in other countries.
In other words, raising tax rates does not automatically raise tax revenues for the government. Higher tax rates have often led to lower tax revenues for states, the federal government and other countries. Conversely, lower tax rates have often led to higher tax revenues. It all depends on the circumstances.
But none of this matters to Barack Obama.
If class warfare rhetoric about taxes leads to more votes for him, that is his bottom line, whether the government gets a dime more revenue or not. So long as his lies go unchallenged, a second term will be the end result for him and a lasting calamity for the country.
Nothing produces more of a sense of the futility of facts than seeing someone in the mass media repeating some notion that has been refuted innumerable times over the years.
On Monday, on CNN's program "The Situation Room" with Wolf Blitzer, commentator Gloria Borger discussed President Obama's plan to continue the temporary extension of the tax rates established under the Bush administration — except for the top brackets, where Obama wanted the tax rates raised.
"If you're going to lower the tax rates," Ms. Borger said, "where are you going to get the money from?"
First of all, nobody is talking about lowering the tax rates. They are talking about whether or not to continue the existing tax rates, which are set to expire after a temporary extension.
And Obama is talking about raising the tax rate on higher-income earners.
But when Ms. Borger asked, "Where are you going to get the money from?" if you don't raise tax rates, that assumes an automatic correlation between tax rates and tax revenues, which is demonstrably false.
As far back as the 1920s, a huge cut in the highest income tax rate — from 73% to 24% — led to a huge increase in the amount of tax revenue collected by the federal government.
Why? Because investors took their money out of tax shelters, where they were earning very modest rates of return, and put their money into the productive economy, where they could earn higher rates of return, now that those returns were not so heavily taxed.
Tax-Cut Rationales
This was the very reason why tax rates were cut in the first place — to get more revenue for the federal government.
The same was true, decades later, during the Kennedy administration. Similar reasons led to tax-rate cuts during the Reagan and the George W. Bush administrations.
All of these presidents — Democrat and Republican alike — made the same argument for tax-rate reductions that had been made in the 1920s, and the results were similar as well.
Yet the invincible lie continues to this day that those who oppose high tax rates on high incomes are doing so because they want to reduce the taxes paid by high-income earners, in hopes that their increased prosperity will "trickle down" to others.
In reality, high-income earners paid not only a larger total amount of taxes after the tax rate cuts of the 1920s but also a higher share of all the income taxes collected.
It is a matter of record that anyone can check out with official government statistics.
This result was not peculiar to the 1920s. In 2006, the New York Times reported: "An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year."
Expectations are in the eye of the beholder. Tax-cut proponents expected precisely the result from the Bush tax cuts that so surprised the New York Times. So did tax cut proponents in the Kennedy and Reagan administrations.
If this concept has not yet trickled down to the New York Times or CNN's Gloria Borger, that is a commentary on the media commentators.
Ms. Borger may simply not know any better, but Barack Obama cannot use that excuse.
When he was a candidate for president back in 2008, Charles Gibson of ABC News confronted him with the fact that there was no automatic correlation between the raising and lowering of tax rates and whether tax revenues moved up or down.
Obama admitted that. But he said that he was for raising tax rates on higher-income earners anyway, in the name of "fairness."
How higher tax rates that the government does not actually collect make any sense, whether from a fairness perspective or as a way of paying the government's bills, is another question. The point here is that Obama knew then that tax rates and tax revenues do not automatically move in the same direction.
In other words, he is lying when he talks as if tax rates and tax revenues move together. Ms. Borger and others in the media may or may not know that.
So they are not necessarily lying. But they are failing to inform their audiences about the facts — and that allows Obama's lies to stand.
http://news.investors.com/article/617653/201207101819/obamas-rhetoric-demonizes-success-and-wealth.htm?p=full
greenberetTFS
07-11-2012, 15:44
Mitt booed at NACCP .............:rolleyes:
Article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/11/mitt-romney-booed_n_1664900.html
This isn't good but since it was were it was,I'm not really that surprised........:eek:
Big Teddy :munchin
Mitt booed at NACCP .............:rolleyes:
Article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/11/mitt-romney-booed_n_1664900.html
This isn't good but since it was were it was,I'm not really that surprised........:eek:
Big Teddy :munchin
Teddy, the HuffPuff is cherry picking. There was more applause than boos:
Full NAACP Speech (http://www.therightscoop.com/1030am-watch-live-as-romney-addresses-the-naacp/)
Pat
Here's a question about Romney:
Why does he choose NOT to attack the partnership of [the current president] with John Corzine?
Flagg--
Take a look at the polling data on voters' priorities. The type of corruption you're talking about does not rate high on the list.
Also, as the GOP has not exactly said "no" to building, ah, collaborative relationships with the affluent, how could Romney make a point about this relationship without having to answer tough questions of his own?
Finally, if the investigative process establishes that Mr. Corzine was incompetent (but not corrupt), then the Romney campaign will have spent a lot of energy, time, and money ineffectively. This ineffectiveness would, on its own, provide plenty of grounds of criticism. (That is, the president's supporters could say that, as a candidate, Romney cannot even identify issues that merit his focus. How can he be counted on to do so as president?)
Flagg--
Take a look at the polling data on voters' priorities. The type of corruption you're talking about does not rate high on the list.
Also, as the GOP has not exactly said "no" to building, ah, collaborative relationships with the affluent, how could Romney make a point about this relationship without having to answer tough questions of his own?
Finally, if the investigative process establishes that Mr. Corzine was incompetent (but not corrupt), then the Romney campaign will have spent a lot of energy, time, and money ineffectively. This ineffectiveness would, on its own, provide plenty of grounds of criticism. (That is, the president's supporters could say that, as a candidate, Romney cannot even identify issues that merit his focus. How can he be counted on to do so as president?)
Roger that.
Here's a question about Romney:
Why does he choose NOT to attack the partnership of President Obama with John Corzine?
For those unaware of John Corzine he is:
Former CEO Goldman Sachs
Former US Senator for NJ
Former Governor NJ
Former CEO of MF Global
For those unaware.....that is key. I would guess to say that if asked most people are familiar with the name John Corzine. But I believe you would find that a overwhelming number of people have no idea what MF Global is, was or did or that John Corzine was anyway associated with it. They have no idea what PFGBest, LIBOR, Derivatives and CDS are or how they affect them either.
The majority of Joe & Jane Public are in a carefree, comatose bliss as long as their little piece of the world remains in harmony. That is what the polling data proves.
And as Sigaba pointed out, Romney suckles from the breast of Big Money just like the Dems, and that includes many of the same breast as the Dems feed from. Romney isn't going to upset that apple cart.
As for Corzine being merely incompetent......look at the inside shills (coverup team) who did the investigation and who was the trustee. Those folks are covering up more asses than Corzines. If Johnny's head were to roll it would be a domino effect that would reach all the way to Capital Hill...it might even make the crash in 2008 look like child's play.
So what you are voting for this Election is again HOPE & CHANGE. As with all elections it is a blind vote because in reality you know that all those campaign promises are little more than a sales ad with super fine print you can't read. And the choices you have been given are the very radical Obama or his less radical twin Mitt Romney.
And guess what, just like health care you won't find out what is actually up Romney's sleeve until he is in office.
The majority of Joe & Jane Public are in a carefree, comatose bliss as long as their little piece of the world remains in harmony. That is what the polling data [prove].MOO, this assessment is strikingly similar to the "false consciousness" rhetoric one generally hears from the radical left.:rolleyes:
If the data prove your point, then what accounts for a Gallup poll last spring that found that 77% of Americans are concerned about international affairs <<LINK (http://www.gallup.com/poll/153689/Voters-Top-Election-Issues-Don-Include-Birth-Control.aspx)>>? What about the ANES data indicating that Americans strongly believe that the U.S. should play a role in world affairs <<LINK2 (http://electionstudies.org/nesguide/toptable/tab4d_1.htm)>>? Or the findings in a 2010 study by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs that use polling data to reach a conclusion that differs from your central point?<<LINK3 (http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/files/Studies_Publications/POS/POS2010/Global_Views_2010.aspx)>>?
And guess what, just like health care you won't find out what is actually up Romney's sleeve until he is in office.
But, unless one is blind, one knows what is up Obama, Holder, Big Sis and Hillary's sleeves...you "bitter clingers."
Anyway, Romney might be considered a placeholder until more aggressive opponents of big government become politically seasoned...you listening Congressman Allen West. :D
ETA link to Allen West embedded vid. I'd chew through concrete to see this guy continue to advance.
http://times247.com/articles/west-let-s-force-everyone-to-buy-a-glock
MOO, this assessment is strikingly similar to the "false consciousness" rhetoric one generally hears from the radical left.:rolleyes:
If the data prove your point, then what accounts for a Gallup poll last spring that found that 77% of Americans are concerned about international affairs <<LINK (http://www.gallup.com/poll/153689/Voters-Top-Election-Issues-Don-Include-Birth-Control.aspx)>>? What about the ANES data indicating that Americans strongly believe that the U.S. should play a role in world affairs <<LINK2 (http://electionstudies.org/nesguide/toptable/tab4d_1.htm)>>? Or the findings in a 2010 study by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs that use polling data to reach a conclusion that differs from your central point?<<LINK3 (http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/files/Studies_Publications/POS/POS2010/Global_Views_2010.aspx)>>?
Gallup:
Most voters in the United States
Most voters.....it should read Most Voters sampled
ANES:
"'This country would be better off if we just stayed home and did
not concern ourselves with problems in other parts of the world.'"
2322
Chicago Council on Global:
Only one-quarter of Americans think the United
States plays a more important and powerful role
as a world leader today compared to ten years
ago, down from a solid majority in 2002 when the
question was last asked.
• Looking forward fifty years, only one-third of
Americans think the United States will continue
to be the world’s leading power.
• Just over half of Americans think the ability of the
United States to achieve its foreign policy goals
has decreased
Of Americans........that should read of '2,500 Americans Surveyed'. They could have surveyed 2500 employees at the State Department for all we know....or Fortune 500 Companies....or Goldman Sachs.
Should you be more concerned about Abortion, giving money to Palestine or why your pension fund is getting robbed blind, no one is behind bars and our industries are getting shipped overseas? Should Abortion and Gay Rights be a benchmark for electing a President...I mean life will carry on with or without legalized abortion and gay marriage, but life will not be so grand if pension continue to get robbed and we continue the road to Zimbabwe.
People priorities are out in left field that is what polls indicate. And what I mean, they maybe concerned about the economy as the polls say...but what is the economy to those polled? It's more than MY JOB and collecting a pay stub at the end of the week, it increasingly includes John Corzine and the army of his kind, and the price at the pump.
International Affairs is more than doing good or meddling in other countries affairs.
Of people I talk to, a large portion don't care or know much beyond their job and the money they get from it. They just don't care how, where or why they get it. And they are just sure they are going to get that pension HR told them they had......and they have no idea the pension plan was invested in junk and underwater by millions of dollars.
Cramer gets on the tube daily and says to buy something and/or the economy is on the upswing and people believe him....just because he said so. Why?
People get excited every time the 'initial' employment numbers come out even though they get revised downward in the following 5-10 days. Why?
And when someone excitedly tells me the polls said, and I ask well what does that mean, 9 times out of 10 they don't have an answer.
And if the Polls say people are concerned about the Economy, Mitt Romney and President Obama are going to promise...wait for it...little more than a promise of JOBS and MONEY. And people are going vote for their man because they gunna get sum dat Obama or Romney money!!! Big Screen TV is coming! Hallelujah Jesus!
This election, like a poll gives you only two choices Yes or No.
But, unless one is blind, one knows what is up Obama, Holder, Big Sis and Hillary's sleeves...you "bitter clingers."
Anyway, Romney might be considered a placeholder until more aggressive opponents of big government become politically seasoned...you listening Congressman Allen West. :D
ETA link to Allen West embedded vid. I'd chew through concrete to see this guy continue to advance.
http://times247.com/articles/west-let-s-force-everyone-to-buy-a-glock
Well, but some would consider us blind for not seeing the light that Obama has given us.
A place holder.....I don't know if we have that much time. To be honest, Romney might make some of us feel better for awhile, but neither one of these two clowns can fix what is broken. I mean it is an impossible task for one man, especially for bought house boys like Romney and Obama. Romney and Obama are slaves to a master and in the chains of campaign donations.
I like what Col. West has to say, but you will need a whole lot of Col. West's willing to do a whole lot of ass kicking to get the ship back on course
For those unaware.....that is key. I would guess to say that if asked most people are familiar with the name John Corzine. But I believe you would find that a overwhelming number of people have no idea what MF Global is, was or did or that John Corzine was anyway associated with it. They have no idea what PFGBest, LIBOR, Derivatives and CDS are or how they affect them either.
The majority of Joe & Jane Public are in a carefree, comatose bliss as long as their little piece of the world remains in harmony. That is what the polling data proves.
And as Sigaba pointed out, Romney suckles from the breast of Big Money just like the Dems, and that includes many of the same breast as the Dems feed from. Romney isn't going to upset that apple cart.
As for Corzine being merely incompetent......look at the inside shills (coverup team) who did the investigation and who was the trustee. Those folks are covering up more asses than Corzines. If Johnny's head were to roll it would be a domino effect that would reach all the way to Capital Hill...it might even make the crash in 2008 look like child's play.
So what you are voting for this Election is again HOPE & CHANGE. As with all elections it is a blind vote because in reality you know that all those campaign promises are little more than a sales ad with super fine print you can't read. And the choices you have been given are the very radical Obama or his less radical twin Mitt Romney.
And guess what, just like health care you won't find out what is actually up Romney's sleeve until he is in office.
That's the thing.......to me it appears to be a choice between a Big Mac or a Whopper made of poop....either way, it's a poop sandwich.
Although I have to admit I'd LIKE to choose Romney.....but as you say it's like a choice between worse or worser.
I have to admit to thinking that it's almost a waste of time/energy to invest it in either of the two candidates, and best invested in disrupting the special interest money chain.
To be honest, I'd vote for pretty much anyone sight unseen if they were a decent human being, were surrounded by at least adequate advisors who listened to relevant SMEs, and they weren't corrupted by, or beholden to, special interest money.
How do you disrupt the special interest money chain?
I like checking out this website:
www.opensecrets.org
It helps me understand which politician is owned by whom.
Financial advisors have to disclose their holdings on TV when pumping an investment......wouldn't it be cool to see a Senator on CSPAN or anywhere in the media compelled to disclose relevant campaign donations when speaking or voting?
How do you disrupt the special interest money chain?
Don't buy what they are selling and/or support what brings them profit.
Poor Barrack, should he get reelected - think of the terrible mess he will have inherited...
Poor Barrack, should he get reelected - think of the terrible mess he will have inherited...
What mess? The private sector is doing just fine. :D :rolleyes:
The President just happens to make an "unscheduled" stop at a local food joint, just happens to sit down with three vets - who just happen to be Obama supporters. After the meal as the President is walking out his aids pass out the 3 guy's bios.
And the MSM ate it up with a big spoon.
The President just happens to make an "unscheduled" stop at a local food joint, just happens to sit down with three vets - who just happen to be Obama supporters. After the meal as the President is walking out his aids pass out the 3 guy's bios.
And the MSM ate it up with a big spoon.
It looks like scripted reality TV has infected real world politics.
Maybe the thinking is that if most people actually believe reality tv is real, they might think that reality politics are real too.
Quite sad really....particularly the news media not holding them accountable.
Don't buy what they are selling and/or support what brings them profit.
Agreed.......but if WalMart is any example to go by in terms of NOT buying foreign/Chinese made product that can cause damage to the national economy....it's clearly not working.
Inflexible Six
07-29-2012, 07:22
Poor Barrack, should he get reelected - think of the terrible mess he will have inherited...
Yes sir, apparently there is no statute of limitations on blaming the Bush Administration.
Badger52
07-29-2012, 07:29
The President just happens to make an "unscheduled" stop at a local food joint, just happens to sit down with three vets - who just happen to be Obama supporters. After the meal as the President is walking out his aids pass out the 3 guy's bios.
And the MSM ate it up with a big spoon.Noting the photo that went with that alleged impromptu sit-down (at least the article I saw), note the POTUS body language with the hand again pushed forward into the irritator's face clearly saying "now hold on, don't contradict me, I'm the POTUS, you're wrong and I know what's best."
He's demonstrated before that he truly has no listening skills and is incapable of putting forth a position, based on something he personally knows from experience, when asked a question that's not in the script.
Paragrouper
07-29-2012, 07:46
99 Days and a wake up--we're two digit midgets!:)
IMO, Romney's current inability to gain traction in Ohio (where he is falling further behind, at least according to the polls presented on RealClearPolitics.com) is a legitimate cause for concern among the campaign. It could very well be what delivers O a second term, as was the case with W in 2004....
Yes sir, apparently there is no statute of limitations on blaming the Bush Administration.
I believe you misread my post.
IMO, Romney's current inability to gain traction in Ohio (where he is falling further behind, at least according to the polls presented on RealClearPolitics.com) is a legitimate cause for concern among the campaign. It could very well be what delivers O a second term, as was the case with W in 2004....
Nah. You might get surprised. ;)
Nah. You might get surprised. ;)
I certainly hope so! :D
DHS gears up for civil unrest prior to presidential elections
http://rt.com/usa/news/dhs-unrest-gear-283/
"The Department of Homeland Security has ordered masses of riot gear equipment to prepare for potential significant domestic riots at the Republican National Convention, Democratic National Convention and next year’s presidential inauguration.
The DHS submitted a rushed solicitation to the Federal Business Opportunities site on Wednesday, which is a portal for Federal government procurement requisitions over $25,000. The request gave the potential suppliers only one day to submit their proposals and a 15-day delivery requirement to Alexandria, Virginia.................."
Looks bad at the start of the story - until you read a bit further and see they are only talking about 150 sets of riot gear. Geeeez. Look for this story to be popping up everywhere.
DHS gears up for civil unrest prior to presidential elections
http://rt.com/usa/news/dhs-unrest-gear-283/
"The Department of Homeland Security has ordered masses of riot gear equipment to prepare for potential significant domestic riots at the Republican National Convention, Democratic National Convention and next year’s presidential inauguration.
The DHS submitted a rushed solicitation to the Federal Business Opportunities site on Wednesday, which is a portal for Federal government procurement requisitions over $25,000. The request gave the potential suppliers only one day to submit their proposals and a 15-day delivery requirement to Alexandria, Virginia.................."
Looks bad at the start of the story - until you read a bit further and see they are only talking about 150 sets of riot gear. Geeeez. Look for this story to be popping up everywhere.
It popped up on all the fringe websites 2 days ago. This week is going to be a conspiracy feeding frenzy after Scalias remarks.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/48400076
With just 100 days left until the U.S. presidential election, investors are beginning to make bigger bets on which candidate will carry the day.
One analysis concludes that last week's sharp three-day market surge can only mean that Wall Street is banking on a victory from Republican Mitt Romney.
That's the logical interpretation one can draw from a rally amid conditions that otherwise would demand a selloff, Morgan Stanley chief U.S. equity strategist Adam S. Parker said in an analysis that asserts there is no other reason now to like stocks than a Romney win.
"The problem is that it’s impossible to be bullish and right for the right reasons," Parker said in a note to clients in which he reiterated his 2012 price target for the Standard & Poor's 500 [.SPX 1385.30 -0.67 (-0.05%) ] at 1,214, which would mark a 12 percent drop from the current level.
"Nearly every day someone expresses surprise that our base case is for the equity market to be down by 10-15 percent. Why is this so hard to believe? The market has had eight 10 percent down moves in the last 12 years," Parker said. "We think a better question is why more people don’t forecast that the next 10-15 percent move is down than up?"
Parker cites weak earnings and the likelihood that central bankers won't be able to continue to save the day as bolstering the case against equities. The near-zero interest rate policies from the Federal Reserve and now the European Central Bank, in fact, are weakening the outlook for stock multiples, he said.
The conclusion Parker draws is that investors are betting that Romney will unseat President Obama and bring a more business-friendly environment to the White House.
"At the end of the day, we are not really worried that Europe is going to be 'solved' or that its economy will strongly grow. We also don’t think strong corporate profitability relative to expectations will save the day," he said.
"To us, the biggest bull case for US equities is based on the huge cash balances and the potential belief that they will be more actively and productively deployed. The biggest possibility here would be Romney winning the presidential election."
Snip
Last hard class
07-30-2012, 19:06
One analysis concludes that last week's sharp three-day market surge can only mean that Wall Street is banking on a victory from Republican Mitt Romney.
I have no doubt that the majority of business leaders and large investors would like to see a Romney win. It is then somewhat ironic that the market is up over 60% since Obama took office. Here is a chart going back to Nixon.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=where%20did%20the%20dow%20close%20when%20obama%2 0took%20office&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CFQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cleveland.com%2Fdatacentral%2 Findex.ssf%2F2012%2F01%2Fdow_up_more_than_50_perce nt_si.html&ei=YCgXUKLdI9L6qAGk6oDYAw&usg=AFQjCNG9umoqLIDSvi4ZfaPOcxT-tfA2Bw
Just goes to show you that a good rate of return trumps pure politics.
It takes time for the empirical data, but with the stock market up and the average Joe down, common sense would suggest the income gap has actually grown during this President’s tenure. That must really tick him off.
LHC
Obama team sees promise in 3rd party candidacies
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20120731/DA0C2K984.html
"WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama's re-election effort is paying close attention to two candidates mounting third-party campaigns for the presidency, believing they could draw votes from Republican rival Mitt Romney and help Obama win a few tightly contested states.
One candidate is Virgil Goode, a former conservative Virginia congressman who is running as a member of the Constitution Party. The other is Gary Johnson, a former two-term Republican governor of New Mexico who is the Libertarian Party's presidential nominee.
Obama's team has scenarios whereby Obama can win states like Virginia and Colorado with less than 50 percent of the vote, with an assist from Goode and Johnson.
Romney aides say his supporters are too committed to defeating Obama to vote for a third-party candidate................................."
Romney aides say his supporters are too committed to defeating Obama to vote for a third-party candidate................................."
Deja Vu
I have no doubt that the majority of business leaders and large investors would like to see a Romney win. It is then somewhat ironic that the market is up over 60% since Obama took office. Here is a chart going back to Nixon.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=where%20did%20the%20dow%20close%20when%20obama%2 0took%20office&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CFQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cleveland.com%2Fdatacentral%2 Findex.ssf%2F2012%2F01%2Fdow_up_more_than_50_perce nt_si.html&ei=YCgXUKLdI9L6qAGk6oDYAw&usg=AFQjCNG9umoqLIDSvi4ZfaPOcxT-tfA2Bw
Just goes to show you that a good rate of return trumps pure politics.
It takes time for the empirical data, but with the stock market up and the average Joe down, common sense would suggest the income gap has actually grown during this President’s tenure. That must really tick him off.
LHC
Wasn't the DOW restructured after 2008 in order to weed out some under performers, and those replaced with other companies that were doing better, therby making the picture more rosey, or was that from the rumor mill?
I believe that an astute campaign by the DNC could siphon off a lot of youthful Ron Paul supporters to the Gary Johnson Libertarian campaign. This could easily be mitigated by some common sense efforts of inclusion by the RNC.
Oh well...
I believe that an astute campaign by the DNC could siphon off a lot of youthful Ron Paul supporters to the Gary Johnson Libertarian campaign. This could easily be mitigated by some common sense efforts of inclusion by the RNC.
Oh well...I think the DNC could also make a "mix tape" of soundbites to get the populist and "Rockerfeller" wings of the GOP staring at each other. I don't know if "ABO" is strong enough of a pole to hold up the tattered remains of the Big Tent.
Dozer523
07-31-2012, 14:45
This could easily be mitigated by some common sense efforts of inclusion by the RNC.
Oh well...
You used "inclusion" and "RNC" in the same sentence. Haven't seen it on the same page in quite some time. Thanks for the laugh. :D
The Reaper
07-31-2012, 16:53
You used "inclusion" and "RNC" in the same sentence. Haven't seen it on the same page in quite some time. Thanks for the laugh. :D
Unlike the party of the Klan and the communists. :rolleyes:
TR
Obama team sees promise in 3rd party candidacies
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20120731/DA0C2K984.html
"WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama's re-election effort is paying close attention to two candidates mounting third-party campaigns for the presidency, believing they could draw votes from Republican rival Mitt Romney and help Obama win a few tightly contested states.
One candidate is Virgil Goode, a former conservative Virginia congressman who is running as a member of the Constitution Party. The other is Gary Johnson, a former two-term Republican governor of New Mexico who is the Libertarian Party's presidential nominee.
Obama's team has scenarios whereby Obama can win states like Virginia and Colorado with less than 50 percent of the vote, with an assist from Goode and Johnson.
Romney aides say his supporters are too committed to defeating Obama to vote for a third-party candidate................................."
What would the chances/likelihood be for the 3rd parties....IF they are able to gain enough individual state voter traction....to do deals?
IE...drop out and throw their support behind Romney in exchange for some policy/platform concessions?
Would it be fair to say there would be a good bit of back channel contact between the Romney campaign and 3rd party efforts?
What would the chances/likelihood be for the 3rd parties....IF they are able to gain enough individual state voter traction....to do deals?
IE...drop out and throw their support behind Romney in exchange for some policy/platform concessions?
Would it be fair to say there would be a good bit of back channel contact between the Romney campaign and 3rd party efforts?Flagg--
I am not sure if you're asking rhetorical questions to generate discussion or if you are merely reluctant to develop answers to your own questions (e.g. your Sarah Palin thread).
In any case, one can find information that provides a historical background to some of your questions here (http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2007/August/20070820180912lnkais0.4578668.html).
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows Mitt Romney attracting 47% of the vote, while President Obama earns support from 44%. Five percent (5%) prefer some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided.
Romney has a 20-point advantage among white voters. Obama is supported by 91% of black voters and 57% of other minority voters.
A third of Americans favor a ban on all television political advertising. Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, says the data “suggests many Americans view political campaigns and political advertising as a form of civic pollution.” Just 43% believe American elections are fair to voters.
Matchup results are updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update).
The president’s support has stayed between 43% and 45% for ten straight days. During that stretch, Romney’s support has been between 46% and 49% every day. See tracking history.
Most voters have not yet felt any personal impact from the president’s health care law. Overall, 15% have been helped by the law and 25% have been hurt. As they have consistently for years, most Americans believe cost control should be the top priority for health care reform. Only 23% rate providing coverage for the uninsured as most important.
There is a high level concern about violence in video games, movies, and TV. Most believe violence in entertainment leads to more violence in society. However, by a 58% to 31% margin, Americans believe protecting freedom of speech is more important than limiting media violence.
Republicans hold a three-point advantage on the Generic Congressional Ballot. This lead is a bit smaller than the Republicans enjoyed in 2010.
Despite the continuing violence in Syria, most voters still want the United States to stay uninvolved. Just 21% support providing military assistance.
Snip
Flagg--
I am not sure if you're asking rhetorical questions to generate discussion or if you are merely reluctant to develop answers to your own questions (e.g. your Sarah Palin thread).
In any case, one can find information that provides a historical background to some of your questions here (http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2007/August/20070820180912lnkais0.4578668.html).
I'm definitely NOT trying to stir any unnecessary poop.
It's a legitimate question.
I'm vaguely aware of Wallace in 1968 and more familiar with Perot in 92 and 96, and Nader in 2000.
I've read the bits and pieces regarding the rearward looking "If this would have happened, then that would have happened" type of stuff.
But I'm unfamiliar with what happens in a realtime environment like right now with under 100 days to go.
I know in other democratic countries, like here in NZ for example.....it's all about coalition building as the two main parties here rarely achieve enough of the vote to rule alone.....and the minority/fringe parties can achieve considerable/outsized influence over the two larger parties.
But it's run under an MMP system here....which differs from the winner takes all US system....so it's not appropriate to use a direct comparison since it's a slightly different game.....like comparing Rugby to Football.
I just honestly haven't seen/read much on what happens behind the scenes between campaigns in the US.
And I don't recall any really big overt overtures from a major party to woo the 3rd parties.....maybe I wasn't paying attention close enough.
While it doesn't sound common in US elections/government.....I would think unlike down here where the minor party influence extends THROUGH the lifespan of the government...that the 3rd party's power ends on election day.
So legitimate question.......I wasn't implying anything untoward by anyone or any party......just wondering if there's any real chance of a major party doing a deal with a 3rd party. Is it even an option?
Airbornelawyer
07-31-2012, 19:46
Wasn't the DOW restructured after 2008 in order to weed out some under performers, and those replaced with other companies that were doing better, therby making the picture more rosey, or was that from the rumor mill?
DJIA components are restructured every few years to better reflect the market as a whole (I use DJIA rather than DOW because DOW is the ticker symbol of Dow Chemical Corp., so it can sometimes be confusing when looking for financial data). You can look at the correlation between the DJIA and the S&P 500 to see how well the the DJIA reflects the larger market. The DJIA is somewhat more conservative, and lags some economic/market developments: for instance, Hewlett-Packard was added in 1997 and Intel and Microsoft in 1999, well into the tech boom, indeed not long before its collapse.
As a result of the 2008 financial crisis, insurer American International Group (AIG) was dropped from the DOW on September 22, 2008 and Citigroup and General Motors (GM) were dropped on June 8, 2009. AIG was replaced by Kraft Foods, and Citi and GM were replaced by The Travelers Companies and Cisco Systems. Cisco has proven to be a rather bad choice; Apple Inc. might have been a better proxy for the tech sector.
By the way, rather ironically, the last change before the 2008 financial crisis, in February 2008, saw Bank of America added to the DJIA. This change was prompted by the split-up of the Altria Group into three smaller companies (Philip Morris, Altria and Kraft), but it also saw Honeywell dropped and Chevron added.
I have no doubt that the majority of business leaders and large investors would like to see a Romney win. It is then somewhat ironic that the market is up over 60% since Obama took office. Here is a chart going back to Nixon.
Just goes to show you that a good rate of return trumps pure politics.
It takes time for the empirical data, but with the stock market up and the average Joe down, common sense would suggest the income gap has actually grown during this President’s tenure. That must really tick him off.
LHC
Bear in mind the difference between wealth and income. A rise in stock values doesn't translate into income until you sell the stock and take the capital gains. This is less important for stock traders, but for long term investors, especially those whose stock ownership is through retirement accounts, the recovery in stocks from the March 2009 bottom means a recovery in their wealth if not much change in their income.
It's also worth noting that the average Joe does own stock, even if only through a mutual fund or retirement account. A majority of Americans own stock, individually or through mutual funds or retirement accounts, although the percentage has dropped since a peak in 2002.
I can't see your chart, but looking at the chart linked below, what is apparent is that the gains since 2009 are because of how deep the trough was at the market bottom. There was a similarly large rise off the post-dotcom bust and post-September 11 market crash.
http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/z?s=%5eGSPC&t=my&q=l&l=off&z=l&a=v&p=s&lang=en-US®ion=US
I can't say for sure, but I also think much of the market increase has been the result of Federal Reserve policies such as quantitative easing, which had at least the partial intent of "goosing" the stock market in the hope that the wealth effect of recovering stock portfolios, owned by companies and individuals, would lead to more investment and spending, thus improving the overall economy. I don't think this has really worked, since companies have mostly used the easy money to improve their balance sheets rather than make new investments, since they still have concerns over long-term trends such as the effect of US and European sovereign debt and deficits. And individuals, similarly, also seem more intent on improving their "balance sheets", paying off debt rather than incurring new debt. But even more invidiously, the effect of Fed policies on dollar-denominated commodities has meant higher food and fuel costs. And this has been on top of other supply-side factors causing higher food and fuel prices, such as diversion of corn production into ethanol and away from food and feed, and demand-side factors such as increasing fuel consumption by the Chinese and other developing economies.
Airbornelawyer
07-31-2012, 20:13
Jumping back up a few posts:
Flagg, your question is a two-parter. First, can third-party candidates gain enough traction to affect elections? Second, what is the likelihood of deals between the majors and a third-party?
To the first, Sigaba's link does provide some historical background. I would say that Perot probably cost Bush his reelection and Nader may have cost Gore the election.
But to the second question, because of the strength of the two major parties, third-party candidacies are often protest votes by people strongly opposed to the two major parties, so they are unwilling to make deals or compromise. Indeed their existence is usually a reaction to how they perceive the two major parties as too willing to compromise. So a deal, back-channel or not, is not likely, though I suppose anything is possible.
Now a party could respond to a third-party challenge autonomously, by making changes to platforms or personnel, or offering hints or promises of policy directions, without making any kind of "deal." But even this has the potential to backfire. Arguably, Kerry ran further to the left than he might otherwise have, to win back Nader voters, and it appears that he did win most of them back. But in doing so, he lost other voters in the center. When I did a study of this back in 2004, I found that in almost every state where Kerry improved over Gore vis-a-vis Nader, he performed worse than Gore vis-a-vis Bush.
Regarding the current election, I think Rep. Ron Paul's actions indicate that most Libertarian-leaning voters still think their interests are better served within the GOP, especially a GOP strengthened by the Tea Party and other smaller government activists. The Gary Johnson "threat" in places like Colorado might give Paul a little more leverage at the GOP convention, though.
Jumping back up a few posts:
Flagg, your question is a two-parter. First, can third-party candidates gain enough traction to affect elections? Second, what is the likelihood of deals between the majors and a third-party?
To the first, Sigaba's link does provide some historical background. I would say that Perot probably cost Bush his reelection and Nader may have cost Gore the election.
But to the second question, because of the strength of the two major parties, third-party candidacies are often protest votes by people strongly opposed to the two major parties, so they are unwilling to make deals or compromise. Indeed their existence is usually a reaction to how they perceive the two major parties as too willing to compromise. So a deal, back-channel or not, is not likely, though I suppose anything is possible.
Now a party could respond to a third-party challenge autonomously, by making changes to platforms or personnel, or offering hints or promises of policy directions, without making any kind of "deal." But even this has the potential to backfire. Arguably, Kerry ran further to the left than he might otherwise have, to win back Nader voters, and it appears that he did win most of them back. But in doing so, he lost other voters in the center. When I did a study of this back in 2004, I found that in almost every state where Kerry improved over Gore vis-a-vis Nader, he performed worse than Gore vis-a-vis Bush.
Regarding the current election, I think Rep. Ron Paul's actions indicate that most Libertarian-leaning voters still think their interests are better served within the GOP, especially a GOP strengthened by the Tea Party and other smaller government activists. The Gary Johnson "threat" in places like Colorado might give Paul a little more leverage at the GOP convention, though.
Cheers for that!
Much appreciated.......it's quite interesting to see the cause/effect of the differences between the MMP system down here and the First Past The Post(as it's called here) system up there.
I'm not a fan of the MMP system here....it appears to give too much say to the fringe groups if a single party majority is not achieved....but I can see how the FPTP system could be frustrating to some as well if "their" major party is spoiled by a 3rd party.
Anywho......watching with fingers crossed.
Last hard class
08-02-2012, 02:14
Bear in mind the difference between wealth and income. A rise in stock values doesn't translate into income until you sell the stock and take the capital gains. This is less important for stock traders, but for long term investors, especially those whose stock ownership is through retirement accounts, the recovery in stocks from the March 2009 bottom means a recovery in their wealth if not much change in their income.
It's also worth noting that the average Joe does own stock, even if only through a mutual fund or retirement account. A majority of Americans own stock, individually or through mutual funds or retirement accounts, although the percentage has dropped since a peak in 2002.
An unexpected nibble on my line. Maybe I should go back to fishing with dynamite. :D
Excellent post! However inferring that the stock market does not affect the income gap is a bit misleading. As you state, most middle class Americans have a stake in the stock market . When it goes up they benefit. For the average Joe, this largely represents an increase in wealth. The majority of middle class income is still dependent on the J.O.B.. Conversely, a much higher percentage of income for the top 1% is derived by capital gains, and other investment income. When the market rises, not only does their wealth increase but the income gap between the top 1% and everyone widens as well.
Here is a droll read that may interest a few of you. It also helps with insomnia.
http://emlab.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2010.pdf
BTW: I am a big believer in risk vs. reward. It should be noted that when the market tanks the top income takes it on the chin.
These numbers are older ( and easier to digest ) but maybe more relevant as they compare the wealthiest against the middle class, not just the poorest. IMO a much more meaningful argument when talking income growth.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=how%20to%20measure%20the%20income%20gap%20in%20a merica&source=web&cd=3&sqi=2&ved=0CFcQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.propublica.org%2Farticle%2Fth e-u.s.s-growing-income-gap-by-the-numbers&ei=nCwaUJigL-HeiALtx4GwBg&usg=AFQjCNE3hAqrLDvvWYL88Hg69mqZ0gC6Lg
LHC
lolol Check out the sampling data. :D
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/08/pew-obama-has-big-lead-romney-favorability-drops-130957.html
This effin' "race" to the White House is looking a lot like yesterday's Chinese-South Korean badminton match.
Richard :munchin
lolol Check out the sampling data. :D
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/08/pew-obama-has-big-lead-romney-favorability-drops-130957.html
The only polling data that matters is the final tally after the election.
greenberetTFS
08-02-2012, 16:33
This effin' "race" to the White House is looking a lot like yesterday's Chinese-South Korean badminton match.
Richard :munchin
ROTFLMAO.......:lifter :lifter
Big Teddy :munchin
greenberetTFS
08-02-2012, 23:39
Las Vegas Odds on November’s Election
This is an interesting perspective and logic that may be hard to refute......:eek:
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.
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 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.................:(
Big Teddy :munchin
The only polling data that matters is the final tally after the election.
Exactly. I am becoming so disenchanted by the polls--regardless of who is "ahead" in them--that I have decided to refrain from viewing them until at least next month, when they really begin to have merit. As with all elections, it will indeed be a relief for me when it is finally over (and, hopefully, O is looking for a new job).
There are enough undecided voters left who could tip this election either way. We'll see how it goes....:munchin
Do the arithmetic on the sampling data in this poll...
Do the arithmetic on the sampling data in this poll...
Oh of course, this poll is a load of donkey feces (pun intended ;)). I have found Rasmussen to be a fairly reliable polling agency....they only sample "likely voters". After all the media coverage and pageantry of the conventions is over, the real fun will begin with trying to woo the remaining undecided crowd.
I have a gut feeling a lot of them are going to look at the state of the economy and unemployment and go for the challenger...;)
GratefulCitizen
08-03-2012, 19:40
Do the arithmetic on the sampling data in this poll...
The problem comes from the sheer number of polls.
A 95% confidence level means their long term goal is to be wrong 5% of the time.
Election day comes, and exit polls try to project results.
With a 95% confidence level (commonly used), 2.5% will be wrong in the "right" direction and 2.5% will be wrong in the "wrong" direction.
n = 51 (50 states and D.C.)
p = .025 (chance of being wrong in the "wrong" direction)
~72% chance of at least 1 state being wrong in the "wrong" direction
~36% chance of at least 2 states
~13% chance of at least 3 states
This assumes truly random samples in the exit polling.:rolleyes:
For the past 8 years, this guy has been as accurate as probability will allow:
http://www.electionprojection.com/index.php
Tends to get more accurate as the election draws closer.
The point of my OP was to highlight the chicanery, not to discuss the stats.
Here's a good one! :rolleyes:
Retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark said Thursday he wants the American public to understand what a "great commander in chief" President Barack Obama is.
"He's made some really great decisions, some tough decisions and he's been extremely successful," Clark told the Daily Press. "Not only that, he's been stronger in support of veterans in actual resources and programs than any president in my life time."
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/08/03/retired-four-star-gives-presidential-pick.html?ESRC=sm_todayinmil.nl
Richard :munchin
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Joseph Goebbels
With all due respect to Gen. Clark, but his apparent break from reality seems to have occurred about the time he was assigned to NATO.
The Reaper
08-04-2012, 16:42
With all due respect to Gen. Clark, but his apparent break from reality seems to have occurred about the time he was assigned to NATO.
No, he was a jackass a long time before that. :rolleyes:
TR
Retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark said Thursday he wants the American public to understand what a "great commander in chief" President Barack Obama is.
"He's made some really great decisions, some tough decisions and he's been extremely successful," Clark told the Daily Press. "Not only that, he's been stronger in support of veterans in actual resources and programs than any president in my life time."
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/08/03/retired-four-star-gives-presidential-pick.html?ESRC=sm_todayinmil.nl
He didn't make all of those decisions. Somebody else made those for him. Probably the caddie.
For those who think that polling data don't matter. Source is here (http://www.npr.org/2012/08/05/158156521/a-democrats-view-why-women-should-vote-for-obama?ft=1&f=1001).LINDA WERTHEIMER, HOST:
This is WEEKEND EDITION from NPR News. I'm Linda Wertheimer. The 2012 presidential election looks very close right now. So, eking out a few points of daylight between the candidates is very important, and there are key groups both sides want to court - Hispanics, white-collar workers, the youth vote, and, of course, women. This week, the Obama campaign is hosting two summits for women voters in Florida. Debbie Wasserman Schultz who is chair of the Democratic National Committee and the congresswoman for Florida's 20th District is at both meetings. And she joins us from Miami. Congresswoman Schultz, thank you for taking the time to speak with us.
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Thanks for having me. I really appreciate it.
WERTHEIMER: We've been looking at political polls, obviously, and one poll which is out this weekend puts President Obama slightly ahead in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. You think that's going to be enough?
SCHULTZ: Well, you know, this is, obviously, going to be a very close election. We have just three months until Election Day and we know that our grassroots campaign is going to make sure that through people power, Barack Obama is going to be able to be re-elected as president of the United States because women know what's at stake in this election.
WERTHEIMER: But when you look at the insides of these political polls, the innards of the polls, they do show that the president is running behind Mr. Romney with white women, with married women. Why aren't you doing better with those women?
SCHULTZ: Well, I think that overall, President Obama has a wide gender gap for a reason. The overwhelming majority of women in this country understand that Barack Obama has been a president that has made the issues important to women a priority, like equal pay for equal work, like making sure that young people have an opportunity to pursue the dream of a higher education and that that education could be affordable. Thanks to Barack Obama, this past week, we were able to make sure that women have access to lifesaving preventative care, like mammograms and colonoscopies and well-women visits and birth control, so that it's possible for them to stay healthy, rather than only accessing the health care system when they're sick. Mitt Romney thinks that we should get rid of Planned Parenthood funding and family planning funding. Mitt Romney thinks that it's OK for insurance companies to drop you or deny you coverage for pre-existing conditions. He wants to repeal the Affordable Care Act. He wants to overturn Roe versus Wade.
WERTHEIMER: OK. You've given us a sort of the speech, the campaign surrogate speech, talking points...
SCHULTZ: It's not a speech. I'm not giving you talking points or a speech. Those are the facts. Look, President Obama inherited the most problems at once of any president since FDR, and the worst economic recession that we've ever experienced since the Great Depression. So, I think Americans clearly understand that this problem didn't occur overnight and getting us out of this economic mess that he inherited from the previous administration won't be solved overnight. But we know that we're making progress. We know that we've had 29 straight months of job growth in the private sector. We know that we've had a resurgence in the manufacturing sector for the first time since the 1990s. We know that the stock market has been thriving under Barack Obama's presidency. And so I think that Barack Obama deserves credit for moving us forward. We know we have a long way to go. You know, Barack Obama's not satisfied with how far we've come. We got to push harder. But, you know, I think that most Americans agree that we could do even better if the Republicans cared more than one job. They care about Barack Obama's job.
WERTHEIMER: Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz. She is chair of the Democratic National Committee. She represents Florida's 20th District. Thank you very much.
SCHULTZ: Thank you, Linda.Background on MS. Wertheimer is available here (http://www.nytimes.com/1994/01/02/magazine/cokie-roberts-nina-totenberg-and-linda-wertheimer.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm).
IMO, some of the comments accompanying this transcript are revealing.
IMO, some of the comments accompanying this transcript are revealing.
Why pay attention to someone who says on nationwide television that Obama has "turned the economy around" for the better?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2CixDY-CIU
Obama Campaign wants to know(via Twitter) how the President has helped small business:
https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/232147916167446528
This has potential to backfire like Shell's "Let's Go" user generated campaign on Facebook.
Obama Campaign wants to know(via Twitter) how the President has helped small business:
https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/232147916167446528
This has potential to backfire like Shell's "Let's Go" user generated campaign on Facebook.
Or the GM buyout. Or the stimulus. Or the "war on women". Or Bain. Or "you didn't build that". Or...ad nauseum ad infinitum
Or the GM buyout. Or the stimulus. Or the "war on women". Or Bain. Or "you didn't build that". Or...ad nauseum ad infinitum
From a first quick look, I'd say it seems a bit similar to the "you didn't build that" internet meme, but with the left probably finding this much harder to counter or put the fire out via the SOP of "taken out of context" IF unanticipated cogent responses start coming from 360 degrees across the small business community in America.
After seeing that train wreck of Shell's Facebook campaign and the high comfort level of the Obama campaign's use of social media, you'd think they'd put this through the "lawyer filter" of truly ensuring they know the answer to the potentially quite dangerous question they are asking.
Politics...something I am strangely repulsed by...while at the same time I'm drawn to like a bug zapper.
Why pay attention to someone who says on nationwide television that Obama has "turned the economy around" for the better?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2CixDY-CIU
Because far too many people believe her! The corrupt media not only ignores blatant falsehoods but actually creates pathetic ones on their own! Far too many people have been desensitized to anything political to the point of apathy and base their voting opinions based on the general background news they acquire.
Because far too many people believe her! The corrupt media not only ignores blatant falsehoods but actually creates pathetic ones on their own! Far too many people have been desensitized to anything political to the point of apathy and base their voting opinions based on the general background news they acquire.
I see your point, but...
You can't change Wasserman-Schultz. You can't change the minds of the people who buy into that idiocy. What you can do is entice them to gain better perspective by not believing NPR, the NYT, WaPo, NBC, CBS, CNN, ABC, the AP any of or their local derivatives-they're corrupted by the left.
How do you entice them? Convince them to listen to Rush Limbaugh for 6 weeks. Get them to read Ann Coulter's columns from archive. Have them watch FOX news for a month or two.
Many of those poor, unfortunate souls are too malleable, and are controlled by pressure from their peers, e.g. the Hollywood syndrome.
Some will actually pay attention.
And yeah, I know Limbaugh, Coulter and FOX are slightly right-of-center. ;)
Try to prove the others aren't in the tank for the left.
These jokers always seem to have a place to hide in academia - until it's safe to reemerge.
RADICAL OBAMA REGULATORY CHIEF CASS SUNSTEIN RESIGNS
Breitbart
8/5/12
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/08/05/Radical-Obama-Regulatory-Chief-Cass-Sunstein-Resigns
Excerpt:
Cass Sunstein administered the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). Referred to as OIRA (Oh-eye-rah) in wonky academic circles, it is one of the most powerful behind-the-scenes jobs a person can have because it reviews nearly every regulation for an administrative state that continues to expand.
And on Friday, Sunstein resigned from this post and said he would go back to Harvard, signifying another moment in which a key Obama ally decided it was better to jump ship.
Sunstein once argued in a speech at Harvard that the government could be used to eliminate “practices such as ... meat eating,” argued hunting should be banned (“We ought to ban hunting ... that should be against the law ... it’s time now,” he said), and wrote in a 2004 book that animals should be able to sue in a court of law and have humans represents them as clients.
Few represented President Barack Obama’s academic aloofness and air of intellectual superiority more than Sunstein and Obama essentially asked the radical professor what job he would want in his administration.
That would explain why he was given enormous power to review the language of Obamacare. Sunstein also reviewed Dodd-Frank, which is destroying small banks, environmental regulations, new food rules -- such as changing the food pyramid to a plate -- and a variety of fuel efficiency standards. He was also in charge of E.P.A. regulations that created new standards for carbon emissions from various-sized plants, which burdened businesses and created more economic uncertainty for those trying to start businesses or build manufacturing plants at home.
In truth, Sunstein -- and OIRA -- reviewed nearly everything in the vast administrative state. His power is more significant in dealing with under-the-radar rules and regulations that often go unnoticed.
The New York Times aptly described Sunstein as someone who “came to Washington to test his theories of human behavior and economic efficiency in the laboratory of the federal government.”
Like Obama’s, these academic theories are often not grounded in reality, and that is why they fail miserably.
Sunstein and the White House declined to comment directly to any outlet on Friday. The White House just released a brief statement which said “For the last three and a half years, Cass Sunstein has helped drive a series of historic accomplishments on behalf of the American people.
Airbornelawyer
08-08-2012, 15:19
So I'm half-watching the news, and they begin touting a story on the latest Quinnipiac poll out of Virginia, which shows Obama ahead of Romney by 49% to 45%. They speculate on various reasons why Obama has pulled ahead from a poll last month and whether Virginia is essential to Romney.
Of course, as is typical, they don't really tell you anything about the poll itself. So I pulled up the poll (which is actually of three states - CO, VA and WI) here (http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/407781/latest-quinnipiac-new-york-times-cbs-poll.pdf).
For Virginia, the party IDs are 23% Republican, 30% Democrat, and 40% independent. DO you suppose a +7 Democrat party ID might help put Obama ahead in a poll?
So in a state with a Republican Governor, Republican Lt. Governor, Republican Attorney General, Republican-controlled Senate, Republican-controlled House of Delegates, and 8 Republicans in its 11-person US Congressional delegation, the pollsters found only 23 Republicans for every 100 people they polled.
By the way, here in northern Virginia we are being bombarded by Obama attack ads, with the response mainly coming from RNC and independent PAC ads, and a much smaller percentage of ads directly from the Romney campaign.
Entire post.
Desperate times call for desperate measures.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/08/12/Romney-Campaign-3M-24-Hours
The conservative base is on fire after Mitt Romney’s announcement of Paul Ryan as his running mate. Andrea Saul, advisor to Romney, tweeted this morning that the Romney campaign raised $3.5 million online in the 24 hours after the announcement.
This is the most powerful crystallizing moment the Romney campaign has had since the Supreme Court’s ObamaCare decision; Romney raised $4.2 million within 24 hours of that decision.
The palpable excitement over Ryan’s selection contrasts sharply with Barack Obama’s announcement of Joe Biden 2008. In August of 2008, when Obama picked Biden, contributions to the Obama campaign actually decreased from the previous month.
Snip
http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/12/over-10k-greet-romney-and-ryan-in-high-point-nc/
Pretty Weak...
https://twitter.com/jodikantor/status/234747381097328640
http://washingtonexaminer.com/a-romney-first-over-40-of-youth-vote-back-him/article/2504893#.UCueg91lREN
For the first time since he began running for president, Republican Mitt Romney has the support of over 40 percent of America's youth vote, a troubling sign for President Obama who built his 2008 victory with the overwhelming support of younger, idealistic voters.
Pollster John Zogby of JZ Analytics told Secrets Tuesday that Romney received 41 percent in his weekend poll of 1,117 likely voters, for the first time crossing the 40 percent mark. What's more, he said that Romney is the only Republican of those who competed in the primaries to score so high among 18-29 year olds.
"This is the first time I am seeing Romney's numbers this high among 18-29 year olds," said Zogby. "This could be trouble for Obama who needs every young voter he can get."
Zogby helped Secrets dig deeper into his weekend poll, which we reported on earlier. The poll had Romney and Obama tied at 46 percent.
Zogby has been especially interested in the youth vote this election. In 2008, 66 percent chose Obama over Sen. John McCain,the highest percentage for a Democrat in three decades. But their desire for hope and change has turned to disillusionment and unemployment. Zogby calls them "CENGAs" for "college-educated, not going anywhere."
In his latest poll, Obama receives just 49 percent of the youth vote when pitted against Romney, who received 41 percent. In another question, the independent candidacy of Gary Johnson is included, and here Obama wins 50 percent, Romney 38 percent and Johnson 5 percent.
But while taking Johnson out of the equation in the past has seen a surge in support for Obama, now the numbers for Romney--and undecideds--increase.
Zogby speculates that Romney's selection of 42-year-old Rep. Paul Ryan helped turn more younger voters to him. "It could be his youthfulness," said Zogby of Ryan. Plus, he said, more younger voters are becoming libertarian, distrustful of current elected officials and worried that they are going to get stuck with the nation's looming fiscal bill.
"They want change," said Zogby.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/a-romney-first-over-40-of-youth-vote-back-him/article/2504893#.UCueg91lREN "This could be trouble for Obama who needs every young voter he can get."
On the contrary - Oboma needs every damn voter he can get, dead or alive!