Empty Seats Lie Came From Romney Campaign

[Conservative]

Dickless... Huggy... just how many non-Romney and non-Drudge sources showing the actual attendance and images of empty seats do you need in order to accept the fact the attendance was about 23% BELOW capacity in Ohio?

 

[teapartysamurai]

Yep, it's a clear lie of omission that the right wing jackasses were pushing.

Here's the arena when Obama was speaking:

From Politico:

The story was accompanied by a picture of the inside of OSU’s enormous Jerome Schottenstein Center, which is used for basketball and hockey games. The picture, supplied by the Mitt Romney campaign, showed a slice of the stadium with hundreds of empty seats.

Anyone who uses Drudge as a source is a complete idiot.

That's an extremely cropped picture, taken at a curious tilt and it's NOT DATED.

However the picture below is WIDE LENS and doesn't try to tighten in on JUST A CERTAIN PORTION of the audience. My guess is, the cropped picture above was taken right there where Obama was speaking and that portion RIGHT ABOVE OBAMA did have full seats. But when you move away from that, you see that's not the case for the rest of the arena.

That's why the Politico picture doesn't convince me. If they showed us a picture that wasn't so curiously cropped, I might think otherwise.

 

[HUGGY]

Dickless... Huggy... just how many non-Romney and non-Drudge sources showing the actual attendance and images of empty seats do you need in order to accept the fact the attendance was about 23% BELOW capacity in Ohio?

I thought you were smarter than HouseGimp. My bad. The whole thread is lame because it doesn't mean squat if the arena was chuck full right up into the nose bleed sections. If THAT is the big story then by comparrison Romney's turnouts were a stark embarrassment. I saw nothing from the Obama supporters showing the dismal Romney turnouts until you assholes made an issue out of this nothing story. It just shows how pathetic the thinking of the New republican is. By the way. Go fuck yourself for the neg. You are weak.

 

[Conservative]

Yep, it's a clear lie of omission that the right wing jackasses were pushing.

Here's the arena when Obama was speaking:

From Politico:

The story was accompanied by a picture of the inside of OSU’s enormous Jerome Schottenstein Center, which is used for basketball and hockey games. The picture, supplied by the Mitt Romney campaign, showed a slice of the stadium with hundreds of empty seats.

Anyone who uses Drudge as a source is a complete idiot.

That's an extremely cropped picture, taken at a curious tilt and it's NOT DATED.

However the picture below is WIDE LENS and doesn't try to tighten in on JUST A CERTAIN PORTION of the audience. My guess is, the cropped picture above was taken right there where Obama was speaking and that portion RIGHT ABOVE OBAMA did have full seats. But when you move away from that, you see that's not the case for the rest of the arena.

That's why the Politico picture doesn't convince me. If they showed us a picture that wasn't so curiously cropped, I might think otherwise.

the bottom picture was obviously taken prior to the start of the event, as indicated by the lighting at the time. However, other pictures and videos taken DURING the event have been posted... NONE of which came from Drudge or Romney, and they show an obviously NOT filled arena. RCP even listed the 'official' attendance at 14,000 (the arena holds 18,000-20,000, depending on configuration).

 

[Conservative]

Dickless... Huggy... just how many non-Romney and non-Drudge sources showing the actual attendance and images of empty seats do you need in order to accept the fact the attendance was about 23% BELOW capacity in Ohio?

I thought you were smarter than HouseGimp. My bad. The whole thread is lame because it doesn't mean squat if the arena was chuck full right up into the nose bleed sections. If THAT is the big story then by comparrison Romney's turnouts were a stark embarrassment. I saw nothing from the Obama supporters showing the dismal Romney turnouts until you assholes made an issue out of this nothing story. It just shows how pathetic the thinking of the New republican is. By the way. Go fuck yourself for the neg. You are weak.

The thread isn't about Romney turnout. It's about Obama turnout. Feel free to start a Romney turnout thread.

You seriously don't think the inability of Obama to fill a small arena in 2012, during the kickoff to his re-election campaign, as compared to his filling 50,000 seat football stadiums in 2008, matters? You don't think it shows a lowering of support from his base, as compared to 2008?

THAT... is weak.

 

[teapartysamurai]

I've noticed all the videos covering this speech are tightened up on the lower rows or ONLY shows Obama with a certain part of the audience behind him, on very TIGHT focus.

Which tells me the liberal media is hiding that the upper deck was mostly empty.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Yep, it's a clear lie of omission that the right wing jackasses were pushing.

Here's the arena when Obama was speaking:

From Politico:



Anyone who uses Drudge as a source is a complete idiot.

That's an extremely cropped picture, taken at a curious tilt and it's NOT DATED.

However the picture below is WIDE LENS and doesn't try to tighten in on JUST A CERTAIN PORTION of the audience. My guess is, the cropped picture above was taken right there where Obama was speaking and that portion RIGHT ABOVE OBAMA did have full seats. But when you move away from that, you see that's not the case for the rest of the arena.

That's why the Politico picture doesn't convince me. If they showed us a picture that wasn't so curiously cropped, I might think otherwise.

the bottom picture was obviously taken prior to the start of the event, as indicated by the lighting at the time. However, other pictures and videos taken DURING the event have been posted... NONE of which came from Drudge or Romney, and they show an obviously NOT filled arena. RCP even listed the 'official' attendance at 14,000 (the arena holds 18,000-20,000, depending on configuration).

Are any of those pictures in this thread so I can review?

Also I have my doubts it was prior to the start the event, because of the people standing who are obviously looking at something and clapping. It might have been prior to Obama SPEAKING, but it looks to me like the event had started.

 

[Conservative]

That's an extremely cropped picture, taken at a curious tilt and it's NOT DATED.

However the picture below is WIDE LENS and doesn't try to tighten in on JUST A CERTAIN PORTION of the audience. My guess is, the cropped picture above was taken right there where Obama was speaking and that portion RIGHT ABOVE OBAMA did have full seats. But when you move away from that, you see that's not the case for the rest of the arena.

That's why the Politico picture doesn't convince me. If they showed us a picture that wasn't so curiously cropped, I might think otherwise.

the bottom picture was obviously taken prior to the start of the event, as indicated by the lighting at the time. However, other pictures and videos taken DURING the event have been posted... NONE of which came from Drudge or Romney, and they show an obviously NOT filled arena. RCP even listed the 'official' attendance at 14,000 (the arena holds 18,000-20,000, depending on configuration).

Are any of those pictures in this thread so I can review?

Also I have my doubts it was prior to the start the event, because of the people standing who are obviously looking at something and clapping. It might have been prior to Obama SPEAKING, but it looks to me like the event had started.

Read the entire thread. The images I mentioned are there, as are the videos.

In your 2nd pic, I see people wandering blindly about, arms folded, etc. It is OBVIOUSLY prior to the start of the event.

 

[Missourian]

This wouldn't have been an issue had the Obama campaign not predicted an “overflow” crowd at the arena.

But that's the tagline of the entire Obama Presidency...over-promise, under-deliver.

 

[HUGGY]

Dickless... Huggy... just how many non-Romney and non-Drudge sources showing the actual attendance and images of empty seats do you need in order to accept the fact the attendance was about 23% BELOW capacity in Ohio?

I thought you were smarter than HouseGimp. My bad. The whole thread is lame because it doesn't mean squat if the arena was chuck full right up into the nose bleed sections. If THAT is the big story then by comparrison Romney's turnouts were a stark embarrassment. I saw nothing from the Obama supporters showing the dismal Romney turnouts until you assholes made an issue out of this nothing story. It just shows how pathetic the thinking of the New republican is. By the way. Go fuck yourself for the neg. You are weak.

The thread isn't about Romney turnout. It's about Obama turnout. Feel free to start a Romney turnout thread.

You seriously don't think the inability of Obama to fill a small arena in 2012, during the kickoff to his re-election campaign, as compared to his filling 50,000 seat football stadiums in 2008, matters? You don't think it shows a lowering of support from his base, as compared to 2008?

THAT... is weak.

Ya. To me it doesn't matter...not being a dem and everything. If I really cared about big turnouts for Obama I would be packing a lunch for Barack's visit in Seattle today. I don't care so I'm not. I only chime in to remind you assholes what assholes you are. People like you have destroyed my republican party and now can only offer unacceptable freaks like Romney, Bachman, Santorum, Gingrich, Perry, The Pizza guy and Paul as choices. Truth is that the republican party is in shambles now and needs to be disbanded. It is completely disfunctional. You morons take pride in the fact that you do not compromise. Even though you still only represent the super rich that ruined our economy. Now you have an even dumber subset of so called grass roots teabaggers that only want to destroy any ability of government to function. Piss on you. As far as I am concerned you are traitors to this country and it's citizens.

 

[Liability]

The DNC prediction of the massive turnout was piss poor.

The actual turnout wasn't all that hot either.

The masses who turned out in open air amphitheaters compared to the fewer than expected "throngs" at an indoor arena DO speak to the President's failing popularity.

Mitt is not my choice to be the GOP opposition, but that role has been cast all the same. It's almost official now.

Will Mitt generate adoring throngs? No. It starts to look like that (except for hired union geeks and other actors) the Dim candidate will no longer be able to bring in massive crowds either.

And NONE of that really matters. What does matter is who gets the most electoral votes.

And, so, I repeat my prior prediction. It aint gonna be the incumbent.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Yep, it's a clear lie of omission that the right wing jackasses were pushing.

Here's the arena when Obama was speaking:

From Politico:

The story was accompanied by a picture of the inside of OSU’s enormous Jerome Schottenstein Center, which is used for basketball and hockey games. The picture, supplied by the Mitt Romney campaign, showed a slice of the stadium with hundreds of empty seats.

Anyone who uses Drudge as a source is a complete idiot.

ROFLMAO...you use a photo showing about 1/8th of the stadium to prove it was full?

YOU are the only one who is full...as in FULL OF IT!

No moron. I used the photo to demonstrate that Drudge's claim that the arena was half empty was a lie, as was Brainfart's claim the arena was empty. I also show that the narrative was created by the Etch-a-Sketch team, using a photo taken well before the event began, to create a false image.

You must like being lied to.

 

[Dick Tuck]

The DNC prediction of the massive turnout was piss poor.

The actual turnout wasn't all that hot either.

The masses who turned out in open air amphitheaters compared to the fewer than expected "throngs" at an indoor arena DO speak to the President's failing popularity.

Mitt is not my choice to be the GOP opposition, but that role has been cast all the same. It's almost official now.

Will Mitt generate adoring throngs? No. It starts to look like that (except for hired union geeks and other actors) the Dim candidate will no longer be able to bring in massive crowds either.

And NONE of that really matters. What does matter is who gets the most electoral votes.

And, so, I repeat my prior prediction. It aint gonna be the incumbent.

If that's your indicator, why are Romney rallies so poorly attended?

 

[Liability]

The DNC prediction of the massive turnout was piss poor.

The actual turnout wasn't all that hot either.

The masses who turned out in open air amphitheaters compared to the fewer than expected "throngs" at an indoor arena DO speak to the President's failing popularity.

Mitt is not my choice to be the GOP opposition, but that role has been cast all the same. It's almost official now.

Will Mitt generate adoring throngs? No. It starts to look like that (except for hired union geeks and other actors) the Dim candidate will no longer be able to bring in massive crowds either.

And NONE of that really matters. What does matter is who gets the most electoral votes.

And, so, I repeat my prior prediction. It aint gonna be the incumbent.

If that's your indicator, why are Romney rallies so poorly attended?

If "WHAT" is my "indicator?"

Mitt hasn't generated a lot of excitement because he is only now settling in as the all but certain GOP nominee. There were lots of other candidates whom many other Republicans preferred. The primaries were contentious and ugly. Republicans acted so badly, in fact, they could have been Democratics.

Anyway, the fact is: Mitt is not going to win because he is loved and worshipped and adored. He is going to win because the incumbent has an established track record -- an actual record -- that SUCKS dead donkey dick. It's a record the incumbent seeks to avoid running on. It is one which (with a couple of admittedly worthwhile exceptions) he will actively run from.

So I still don't give a rat's ass about the fact that the incumbent failed to meet expectations in drawing a crowd to his kick-off. I don't even care that so far Mitt is not drawing even good crowds. None of that crap matters.

As I correctly noted before, what DOES matter is who gets more electoral votes.

It will not be the incumbent.

 

[Conservative]

No moron. I used the photo to demonstrate that Drudge's claim that the arena was half empty was a lie, as was Brainfart's claim the arena was empty. I also show that the narrative was created by the Etch-a-Sketch team, using a photo taken well before the event began, to create a false image.

You must like being lied to.

still waiting for you to show me where I agreed with them, or used their images or descriptions. Still waiting for you to admit the multiple sources I used were NOT them. Still waiting for you to admit the attendance numbers my multiple sources stated were accurate. Still waiting for you to show me 1 post where I lied.

 

[kwc57]

Yep, it's a clear lie of omission that the right wing jackasses were pushing.

Here's the arena when Obama was speaking:

From Politico:



Anyone who uses Drudge as a source is a complete idiot.

ROFLMAO...you use a photo showing about 1/8th of the stadium to prove it was full?

YOU are the only one who is full...as in FULL OF IT!

No moron. I used the photo to demonstrate that Drudge's claim that the arena was half empty was a lie, as was Brainfart's claim the arena was empty. I also show that the narrative was created by the Etch-a-Sketch team, using a photo taken well before the event began, to create a false image.

You must like being lied to.

I think the new term is "evolved".

 

[HUGGY]

The DNC prediction of the massive turnout was piss poor.

The actual turnout wasn't all that hot either.

The masses who turned out in open air amphitheaters compared to the fewer than expected "throngs" at an indoor arena DO speak to the President's failing popularity.

Mitt is not my choice to be the GOP opposition, but that role has been cast all the same. It's almost official now.

Will Mitt generate adoring throngs? No. It starts to look like that (except for hired union geeks and other actors) the Dim candidate will no longer be able to bring in massive crowds either.

And NONE of that really matters. What does matter is who gets the most electoral votes.

And, so, I repeat my prior prediction. It aint gonna be the incumbent.

If that's your indicator, why are Romney rallies so poorly attended?

If "WHAT" is my "indicator?"

Mitt hasn't generated a lot of excitement because he is only now settling in as the all but certain GOP nominee. There were lots of other candidates whom many other Republicans preferred. The primaries were contentious and ugly. Republicans acted so badly, in fact, they could have been Democratics.

Anyway, the fact is: Mitt is not going to win because he is loved and worshipped and adored. He is going to win because the incumbent has an established track record -- an actual record -- that SUCKS dead donkey dick. It's a record the incumbent seeks to avoid running on. It is one which (with a couple of admittedly worthwhile exceptions) he will actively run from.

So I still don't give a rat's ass about the fact that the incumbent failed to meet expectations in drawing a crowd to his kick-off. I don't even care that so far Mitt is not drawing even good crowds. None of that crap matters.

As I correctly noted before, what DOES matter is who gets more electoral votes.

It will not be the incumbent.

You actually think about sucking dead donkey dick? Wow. Your prediction is wrong. Mittens also has a track record and a history of not creating jobs but destroying jobs/pensions for the benefit of the few rich guys at the top. Did I mention he is a bishop in a wacked out cult? Obama is no great shakes and he gets zero help from the GOP. BUT...the majority of Americans are getting tired of the juvenile gridlock and they know the solution is not who the president is...it's how many asshole neofascists they have to get risd of to have a working congress. Strangely the Teabaggers are helping by knocking off moderate incumbants and leaving the door open for a dem takeover of the house and a bigger majority in the senate. If I were you I wouldn't care a tinkers damn about Obama's chances. I would be worrying that all the negativity and inaction over the last three and a half years will cost the GOP cuz if you haven't noticed..THEY have by far the lowest approval ratings of all in government.

 

[Liability]

If that's your indicator, why are Romney rallies so poorly attended?

If "WHAT" is my "indicator?"

Mitt hasn't generated a lot of excitement because he is only now settling in as the all but certain GOP nominee. There were lots of other candidates whom many other Republicans preferred. The primaries were contentious and ugly. Republicans acted so badly, in fact, they could have been Democratics.

Anyway, the fact is: Mitt is not going to win because he is loved and worshipped and adored. He is going to win because the incumbent has an established track record -- an actual record -- that SUCKS dead donkey dick. It's a record the incumbent seeks to avoid running on. It is one which (with a couple of admittedly worthwhile exceptions) he will actively run from.

So I still don't give a rat's ass about the fact that the incumbent failed to meet expectations in drawing a crowd to his kick-off. I don't even care that so far Mitt is not drawing even good crowds. None of that crap matters.

As I correctly noted before, what DOES matter is who gets more electoral votes.

It will not be the incumbent.

You actually think about sucking dead donkey dick? Wow. Your prediction is wrong. Mittens also has a track record and a history of not creating jobs but destroying jobs/pensions for the benefit of the few rich guys at the top. Did I mention he is a bishop in a wacked out cult? Obama is no great shakes and he gets zero help from the GOP. BUT...the majority of Americans are getting tired of the juvenile gridlock and they know the solution is not who the president is...it's how many asshole neofascists they have to get risd of to have a working congress. Strangely the Teabaggers are helping by knocking off moderate incumbants and leaving the door open for a dem takeover of the house and a bigger majority in the senate. If I were you I wouldn't care a tinkers damn about Obama's chances. I would be worrying that all the negativity and inaction over the last three and a half years will cost the GOP cuz if you haven't noticed..THEY have by far the lowest approval ratings of all in government.

Yes. Using a figure of speech DOES mean that people THINK about it.

Congratulations on yet another important effort at deflection and diversion.

Your opinion about Mormonism is of no concern to me or most people, Smugs.

There are no tea baggers unless you are attempting to discuss open minded liberal Democrat sexual predilections.

However, Tea Partiers, do fight to knock off the so-called "moderate" Republicans in favor of more pronounced and markedly Conservative Republicans. So winning in that effort DOES somehow mean that the Tea Party is dead. Flawless logic.

Oh. I'm sorry. Were you attempting to make a coherent point? So far, you've failed -- completely.

 

[Conservative]

I would be worrying that all the negativity and inaction over the last three and a half years will cost the GOP cuz if you haven't noticed..THEY have by far the lowest approval ratings of all in government.

really?

hmmmmm...

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Generic Congressional Vote

Generic Congressional Vote

RCP Ave. GOP + 0.2

GOP 43.4
DEM 43.0

Seems pretty even to me, you lying sack of elephant sperm.

 

[kwc57]

If that's your indicator, why are Romney rallies so poorly attended?

If "WHAT" is my "indicator?"

Mitt hasn't generated a lot of excitement because he is only now settling in as the all but certain GOP nominee. There were lots of other candidates whom many other Republicans preferred. The primaries were contentious and ugly. Republicans acted so badly, in fact, they could have been Democratics.

Anyway, the fact is: Mitt is not going to win because he is loved and worshipped and adored. He is going to win because the incumbent has an established track record -- an actual record -- that SUCKS dead donkey dick. It's a record the incumbent seeks to avoid running on. It is one which (with a couple of admittedly worthwhile exceptions) he will actively run from.

So I still don't give a rat's ass about the fact that the incumbent failed to meet expectations in drawing a crowd to his kick-off. I don't even care that so far Mitt is not drawing even good crowds. None of that crap matters.

As I correctly noted before, what DOES matter is who gets more electoral votes.

It will not be the incumbent.

You actually think about sucking dead donkey dick? Wow. Your prediction is wrong. Mittens also has a track record and a history of not creating jobs but destroying jobs/pensions for the benefit of the few rich guys at the top. Did I mention he is a bishop in a wacked out cult? Obama is no great shakes and he gets zero help from the GOP. BUT...the majority of Americans are getting tired of the juvenile gridlock and they know the solution is not who the president is...it's how many asshole neofascists they have to get risd of to have a working congress. Strangely the Teabaggers are helping by knocking off moderate incumbants and leaving the door open for a dem takeover of the house and a bigger majority in the senate. If I were you I wouldn't care a tinkers damn about Obama's chances. I would be worrying that all the negativity and inaction over the last three and a half years will cost the GOP cuz if you haven't noticed..THEY have by far the lowest approval ratings of all in government.

James Carville should have the same confidence in your candidate. Carville: Wake up Democrats; you could lose - CNN.com