If Romney doesnt soundly defeat Obama in the debates...

[chikenwing]

Nothing screams "genuine human being" like Mitten's nervous rich guy cackle laugh.

That will be the moment Willard blows the debates.

Only a true idiot would use a guys laugh as a factor in a campaign,the sadness is so many do.

Style over substance

 

[beretta304]

I am curious. Let us assume (just as a point of departure) that the liberal main stream media fairly and accurately covered the campaign. I realize that they don't. But if they did, what objectively do we point to about the Romney campaign that makes it horribly run?

Has Romney made a "gaffe" comment or two? Arguably. But so has The ONE.

Has the Romney campaign been pitched softballs by the Lame Stream Media like The ONE has? Where? When? I haven't seen any evidence of that.

Has the Romney campaign been too lethargic and failed to tour the country and make mandatory campaign stops? Or have they done that (and maybe more) but simply not gotten the same kind of media coverage for the campaign that Team Obama gets?

Has the Romney campaign focused primarily on the issues that actually matter -- and if so, has the message gotten muted by selective non-coverage from the Lame Stream Liberal Media?

I suspect that the orchestrated spin from the Lame Stream Liberal Propagandist Media is "telling" the generally uninformed electorate what they should think. The media's deliberately skewed message is that the Romney campaign has been alternatively, "shocking" or "gaffe-ridden" and maybe the personification of "the evil 1%."

But thankfully, the generally disinterested electorate probably isn't paying too much attention and won't until the debates. This is why the debates pose such a problem for the incumbent. I suspect that Mr. Romney has the discipline to stay on message. And that message doesn't bode well for an incumbent with a record that should make Jimmy Carter smirk.

I agree that the make or break in this Presidential Election WILL be the debates. I don't believe for one second that it is coincidental that it is stacked with libs as "moderators." But I do believe that the incumbent is in DIRE political trouble.

Obama has been able to stick a collar on Romney that he is rich, out of touch and favors only the wealthy

Romney has been unable to shake that collar

So are you proud that those have become the issues? I guess you really don't give a shit about what actually is important. Thanks for admitting that Obama is winning only due to negativity not ability.

 

[chikenwing]

I am curious. Let us assume (just as a point of departure) that the liberal main stream media fairly and accurately covered the campaign. I realize that they don't. But if they did, what objectively do we point to about the Romney campaign that makes it horribly run?

Has Romney made a "gaffe" comment or two? Arguably. But so has The ONE.

Has the Romney campaign been pitched softballs by the Lame Stream Media like The ONE has? Where? When? I haven't seen any evidence of that.

Has the Romney campaign been too lethargic and failed to tour the country and make mandatory campaign stops? Or have they done that (and maybe more) but simply not gotten the same kind of media coverage for the campaign that Team Obama gets?

Has the Romney campaign focused primarily on the issues that actually matter -- and if so, has the message gotten muted by selective non-coverage from the Lame Stream Liberal Media?

I suspect that the orchestrated spin from the Lame Stream Liberal Propagandist Media is "telling" the generally uninformed electorate what they should think. The media's deliberately skewed message is that the Romney campaign has been alternatively, "shocking" or "gaffe-ridden" and maybe the personification of "the evil 1%."

But thankfully, the generally disinterested electorate probably isn't paying too much attention and won't until the debates. This is why the debates pose such a problem for the incumbent. I suspect that Mr. Romney has the discipline to stay on message. And that message doesn't bode well for an incumbent with a record that should make Jimmy Carter smirk.

I agree that the make or break in this Presidential Election WILL be the debates. I don't believe for one second that it is coincidental that it is stacked with libs as "moderators." But I do believe that the incumbent is in DIRE political trouble.

True statement and I agree,Obamma has turned out a few foot in mouth also,you just don't see the media drumming it into our heads. And this tax thing is such BS,the onley relevance this has is for the left to continue with the class warfare envy tactic pandering to the simple minded.

 

[Katzndogz]

Yes that was a complete joke. But I don't think most people fell for that bullshit. At least I hope not. But the 47%comment was very damaging. Not just that but it was stupid. Tying Obama's base to govt money was a stretch. Many receiving those benefits he was talking about are republicans. Retirees etc

Romney was speaking about the 47% of people who are democrats and won't vote for him anyway. Which is true. It is also true that people who are receiving benefits from taxpayers aren't persuaded by arguments to lower taxes. Low taxes and reduced benefits are not persuasive arguments to people who think that higher taxes means an increase in freebies.

your ability to lie is extraordinary.

do they pay you to make yourself look this stupid or does it come naturally?

Your ability to drown in democrat talking point soup is extraordinary. I've head the DNC pays people to go around internet forums to spread their propaganda, you must be one of them.

All you have to do is provide proof that people who derive their living from taxpayer paid benefits wants to lower taxes for the rich. Can you do that? Or will you just come up with "you're a LIAR" to prove your non existent point.

 

[beretta304]

I am curious. Let us assume (just as a point of departure) that the liberal main stream media fairly and accurately covered the campaign. I realize that they don't. But if they did, what objectively do we point to about the Romney campaign that makes it horribly run?

Has Romney made a "gaffe" comment or two? Arguably. But so has The ONE.

Has the Romney campaign been pitched softballs by the Lame Stream Media like The ONE has? Where? When? I haven't seen any evidence of that.

Has the Romney campaign been too lethargic and failed to tour the country and make mandatory campaign stops? Or have they done that (and maybe more) but simply not gotten the same kind of media coverage for the campaign that Team Obama gets?

Has the Romney campaign focused primarily on the issues that actually matter -- and if so, has the message gotten muted by selective non-coverage from the Lame Stream Liberal Media?

I suspect that the orchestrated spin from the Lame Stream Liberal Propagandist Media is "telling" the generally uninformed electorate what they should think. The media's deliberately skewed message is that the Romney campaign has been alternatively, "shocking" or "gaffe-ridden" and maybe the personification of "the evil 1%."

But thankfully, the generally disinterested electorate probably isn't paying too much attention and won't until the debates. This is why the debates pose such a problem for the incumbent. I suspect that Mr. Romney has the discipline to stay on message. And that message doesn't bode well for an incumbent with a record that should make Jimmy Carter smirk.

I agree that the make or break in this Presidential Election WILL be the debates. I don't believe for one second that it is coincidental that it is stacked with libs as "moderators." But I do believe that the incumbent is in DIRE political trouble.

True statement and I agree,Obamma has turned out a few foot in mouth also,you just don't see the media drumming it into our heads. And this tax thing is such BS,the onley relevance this has is for the left to continue with the class warfare envy tactic pandering to the simple minded.

Simple-minded is the base of Obama's party.

 

[chikenwing]

The only prediction I will make is one of them will win

That's not a prediction, it's a tautology.

Ad that definition after sarcasm.

 

[Salt Jones]

Lol wut?

Lacking faith in Romney makes me a leftist? Yeah..ok

I just asked you a question. You seem to be buying into this 'obama has the election locked up' bull.

Sure there are a lot of STUPID people in America that voted for obama the first time. They bought his lies. But I give you this, obama is NOT gaining any NEW VOTERS. If anything, he is LOSING votes, and he didn't win buy much the first time. So no, he isn't going to be reelected. These polls are a bunch of libroid, lame stream, obama leg humping CRAP.

Romney will KILL the fraud boi king in the debates. It's very well known how well the kenyan does with NO TELEPROMPTER...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyW9e5QdWxk]The Obama Stutter - YouTube[/ame]

He didn't win by much? Are you serious?

Yes he is serious. That's what happens when you are clueless about politics, polling and presidential election history. A 7% win in a presidential race is considered "not winning by much".

 

[Katzndogz]

I am curious. Let us assume (just as a point of departure) that the liberal main stream media fairly and accurately covered the campaign. I realize that they don't. But if they did, what objectively do we point to about the Romney campaign that makes it horribly run?

Has Romney made a "gaffe" comment or two? Arguably. But so has The ONE.

Has the Romney campaign been pitched softballs by the Lame Stream Media like The ONE has? Where? When? I haven't seen any evidence of that.

Has the Romney campaign been too lethargic and failed to tour the country and make mandatory campaign stops? Or have they done that (and maybe more) but simply not gotten the same kind of media coverage for the campaign that Team Obama gets?

Has the Romney campaign focused primarily on the issues that actually matter -- and if so, has the message gotten muted by selective non-coverage from the Lame Stream Liberal Media?

I suspect that the orchestrated spin from the Lame Stream Liberal Propagandist Media is "telling" the generally uninformed electorate what they should think. The media's deliberately skewed message is that the Romney campaign has been alternatively, "shocking" or "gaffe-ridden" and maybe the personification of "the evil 1%."

But thankfully, the generally disinterested electorate probably isn't paying too much attention and won't until the debates. This is why the debates pose such a problem for the incumbent. I suspect that Mr. Romney has the discipline to stay on message. And that message doesn't bode well for an incumbent with a record that should make Jimmy Carter smirk.

I agree that the make or break in this Presidential Election WILL be the debates. I don't believe for one second that it is coincidental that it is stacked with libs as "moderators." But I do believe that the incumbent is in DIRE political trouble.

True statement and I agree,Obamma has turned out a few foot in mouth also,you just don't see the media drumming it into our heads. And this tax thing is such BS,the onley relevance this has is for the left to continue with the class warfare envy tactic pandering to the simple minded.

Simple-minded is the base of Obama's party.

Because they are simple minded, they believe that a personal attack will mean instant diversion from the issue.

What will really happen in the debates is that even if Romney mops the floor with obama and sticks his head in a bucket of soap water, democrats will say obama won. Anyone who says Romney won will be a liar. That's how they do it. Now, you can either snap up the bait and stop discussing the issue to prove that you aren't a liar, or just ignore their stupidity.

When Reagan debated Carter, Reagan was said to be old, foolish, senile, out of touch and certainly unfit to hold office due to age if nothing else. That was proved by his debate performance. It took 30 years for democrats to finally admit that it was the debates that ended Carter's second term designs.

 

[Liability]

I am curious. Let us assume (just as a point of departure) that the liberal main stream media fairly and accurately covered the campaign. I realize that they don't. But if they did, what objectively do we point to about the Romney campaign that makes it horribly run?

Has Romney made a "gaffe" comment or two? Arguably. But so has The ONE.

Has the Romney campaign been pitched softballs by the Lame Stream Media like The ONE has? Where? When? I haven't seen any evidence of that.

Has the Romney campaign been too lethargic and failed to tour the country and make mandatory campaign stops? Or have they done that (and maybe more) but simply not gotten the same kind of media coverage for the campaign that Team Obama gets?

Has the Romney campaign focused primarily on the issues that actually matter -- and if so, has the message gotten muted by selective non-coverage from the Lame Stream Liberal Media?

I suspect that the orchestrated spin from the Lame Stream Liberal Propagandist Media is "telling" the generally uninformed electorate what they should think. The media's deliberately skewed message is that the Romney campaign has been alternatively, "shocking" or "gaffe-ridden" and maybe the personification of "the evil 1%."

But thankfully, the generally disinterested electorate probably isn't paying too much attention and won't until the debates. This is why the debates pose such a problem for the incumbent. I suspect that Mr. Romney has the discipline to stay on message. And that message doesn't bode well for an incumbent with a record that should make Jimmy Carter smirk.

I agree that the make or break in this Presidential Election WILL be the debates. I don't believe for one second that it is coincidental that it is stacked with libs as "moderators." But I do believe that the incumbent is in DIRE political trouble.

Obama has been able to stick a collar on Romney that he is rich, out of touch and favors only the wealthy

Romney has been unable to shake that collar

Wrong. The incumbent has played that game and the dutiful lapdog propagandist in the tank liberal lame stream media has tried to support it. So, yeah. It's a talking pointless. But for the most part, if we discount hack lib sympathizers like you, nobody else is buying into it.

It was bullshit to begin with. A mere diversionary tactic from the failed incumbent.

It will not help Pres. Obama out at all on Election Day.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

With an unbiased media or better educated public, Obama would be losing all 57 states

 

[Annie]

His only chance to defeat him in the election will be lost. I submitted to you all that I had doubts that Romney could run a successfull campaign against Obama.
I will not make excuses for a Romney loss but in my opinion he has run a terrible campaign. Without a sound victory in the debate he WILL lose the election.

I personally think that the fact that he's doing as well as he is in the face of the MSM's full blown assault in their effort to continue humping the Obama leg, is a good sign. I mean seriously.. our embassies were over run.. ambassador dead and the press literally fixated on the fact that they THOUGHT Romney defended America too quickly. That was the headline on September 15.

I agree. The media is so off the cliffs they've further lost the trust of the American people. Personally I'm not surprised, I turned to alternative media years ago, not exclusively by a long shot, but enough to get ahead of the curve and notice when the truth wills out in MSM. Such as the stories on 9/11/12 attack not being over a video trailer. Or Mitt's taxes. Or sequestration being a tactic by the Dems to ensure the best possible election results, to hell with the country.

I do believe something is weird though in the polling. Folks of any stripe, including independents do not suddenly change positions in days. We saw the small bounce after RNC convention and the larger one after DNC. Then within a week, all was 'tied' again. In the past few days, suddenly there is a tide rising for Obama. Very unlikely, but November is coming and the results will tell.

 

[rightwinger]

I am curious. Let us assume (just as a point of departure) that the liberal main stream media fairly and accurately covered the campaign. I realize that they don't. But if they did, what objectively do we point to about the Romney campaign that makes it horribly run?

Has Romney made a "gaffe" comment or two? Arguably. But so has The ONE.

Has the Romney campaign been pitched softballs by the Lame Stream Media like The ONE has? Where? When? I haven't seen any evidence of that.

Has the Romney campaign been too lethargic and failed to tour the country and make mandatory campaign stops? Or have they done that (and maybe more) but simply not gotten the same kind of media coverage for the campaign that Team Obama gets?

Has the Romney campaign focused primarily on the issues that actually matter -- and if so, has the message gotten muted by selective non-coverage from the Lame Stream Liberal Media?

I suspect that the orchestrated spin from the Lame Stream Liberal Propagandist Media is "telling" the generally uninformed electorate what they should think. The media's deliberately skewed message is that the Romney campaign has been alternatively, "shocking" or "gaffe-ridden" and maybe the personification of "the evil 1%."

But thankfully, the generally disinterested electorate probably isn't paying too much attention and won't until the debates. This is why the debates pose such a problem for the incumbent. I suspect that Mr. Romney has the discipline to stay on message. And that message doesn't bode well for an incumbent with a record that should make Jimmy Carter smirk.

I agree that the make or break in this Presidential Election WILL be the debates. I don't believe for one second that it is coincidental that it is stacked with libs as "moderators." But I do believe that the incumbent is in DIRE political trouble.

Obama has been able to stick a collar on Romney that he is rich, out of touch and favors only the wealthy

Romney has been unable to shake that collar

So are you proud that those have become the issues? I guess you really don't give a shit about what actually is important. Thanks for admitting that Obama is winning only due to negativity not ability.

Awwwwwww..........Politics ain't fair

Poor little Republicans

 

[rightwinger]

I am curious. Let us assume (just as a point of departure) that the liberal main stream media fairly and accurately covered the campaign. I realize that they don't. But if they did, what objectively do we point to about the Romney campaign that makes it horribly run?

Has Romney made a "gaffe" comment or two? Arguably. But so has The ONE.

Has the Romney campaign been pitched softballs by the Lame Stream Media like The ONE has? Where? When? I haven't seen any evidence of that.

Has the Romney campaign been too lethargic and failed to tour the country and make mandatory campaign stops? Or have they done that (and maybe more) but simply not gotten the same kind of media coverage for the campaign that Team Obama gets?

Has the Romney campaign focused primarily on the issues that actually matter -- and if so, has the message gotten muted by selective non-coverage from the Lame Stream Liberal Media?

I suspect that the orchestrated spin from the Lame Stream Liberal Propagandist Media is "telling" the generally uninformed electorate what they should think. The media's deliberately skewed message is that the Romney campaign has been alternatively, "shocking" or "gaffe-ridden" and maybe the personification of "the evil 1%."

But thankfully, the generally disinterested electorate probably isn't paying too much attention and won't until the debates. This is why the debates pose such a problem for the incumbent. I suspect that Mr. Romney has the discipline to stay on message. And that message doesn't bode well for an incumbent with a record that should make Jimmy Carter smirk.

I agree that the make or break in this Presidential Election WILL be the debates. I don't believe for one second that it is coincidental that it is stacked with libs as "moderators." But I do believe that the incumbent is in DIRE political trouble.

Obama has been able to stick a collar on Romney that he is rich, out of touch and favors only the wealthy

Romney has been unable to shake that collar

Wrong. The incumbent has played that game and the dutiful lapdog propagandist in the tank liberal lame stream media has tried to support it. So, yeah. It's a talking pointless. But for the most part, if we discount hack lib sympathizers like you, nobody else is buying into it.

It was bullshit to begin with. A mere diversionary tactic from the failed incumbent.

It will not help Pres. Obama out at all on Election Day.

Next to Romney, JFK was probably our wealthiest candidate for President. Both were from Massachusetts. JFK was able to convince the public that he was an advocate for the poor and working class

Romney writes them off as part of the 47% that won't vote for him anyway

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

His only chance to defeat him in the election will be lost. I submitted to you all that I had doubts that Romney could run a successfull campaign against Obama.
I will not make excuses for a Romney loss but in my opinion he has run a terrible campaign. Without a sound victory in the debate he WILL lose the election.

I personally think that the fact that he's doing as well as he is in the face of the MSM's full blown assault...

 

[Annie]

It's like the journalism schools have missed teaching, 'How to save your job and industry."

Americans Are Sick of Media's Pro-Obama Bias - Mary Kate Cary (usnews.com)

Americans Are Sick of Media's Pro-Obama Bias
September 21, 2012

This just in from the Gallup organization: Americans' distrust of the media has just hit a new record, with six in 10 Americans saying they have "little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly." Forty percent say they have a "great deal" or a "fair amount" of trust, and I assume this is the same crowd who approve of the job Congress is doing. Where do they find these people?

Gallup says the 20-point difference between positive and negative views of the media is "by far" the highest Gallup has seen since it began asking the question in the 1990s. Among those who trust the media, 58 percent identify themselves as Democrats; 26 percent as Republicans; and most interestingly, 31 percent as independents. That means 69 percent of independents don't trust the media. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the implications of that:


This year's decline in media trust is driven by independents and Republicans. Independents are sharply more negative compared with 2008, suggesting the group that is most closely divided between President Barack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney is quite dissatisfied with its ability to get fair and accurate news coverage of this election.

On the NBC News homepage for politics, there is a chart looking the number of mentions of each candidate on social media: As of yesterday, 30 percent who state an intention to vote for a candidate on social media sites intend to vote for Obama; 38 percent intend to vote for Romney. There have been nearly 33,000 opinions expressed about Obama: Of those, 40 percent are positive, 60 percent negative. Regarding Romney, 21,500 opinions have been posted: 51 percent positive, 49 percent negative. If these numbers are accurate, it tells me this: People aren't agreeing with what they're seeing and hearing from the mainstream media. And they feel strongly enough to post something online about it.


I feel the same way—I've gotten to the point where I tune out much of the political coverage because it makes my blood pressure so high. Here's an example of what I'm talking about. On that same homepage at NBC News, here are the headlines for today:

1. Romney paid 14.1 percent effective tax rate in 2011
2. Obama's battleground advantage grows
3. Obama hits Romney on 47 percent: 'I don't see a lot of victims'
4. Ryan gets boos at AARP conference
5. Polls: Obama ahead in Colorado, Iowa and Wisconsin
6. Obama swipes at Romney over '47 percent' comments


And yet we know that Romney also gave away $4 million last year to charity; that there are just as many polls showing Romney within the margin of error as show Obama ahead; and that Ryan was also applauded at the AARP conference—but there is no mention of those in the headlines. Apparently NBC feels we need to be reminded twice that Obama disagrees with Romney's '47 percent' comment.

Really? Only six in 10 have a problem with this?

 

[Seawytch]

It's like the journalism schools have missed teaching, 'How to save your job and industry."

Americans Are Sick of Media's Pro-Obama Bias - Mary Kate Cary (usnews.com)

Americans Are Sick of Media's Pro-Obama Bias
September 21, 2012

This just in from the Gallup organization: Americans' distrust of the media has just hit a new record, with six in 10 Americans saying they have "little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly." Forty percent say they have a "great deal" or a "fair amount" of trust, and I assume this is the same crowd who approve of the job Congress is doing. Where do they find these people?

Gallup says the 20-point difference between positive and negative views of the media is "by far" the highest Gallup has seen since it began asking the question in the 1990s. Among those who trust the media, 58 percent identify themselves as Democrats; 26 percent as Republicans; and most interestingly, 31 percent as independents. That means 69 percent of independents don't trust the media. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the implications of that:


This year's decline in media trust is driven by independents and Republicans. Independents are sharply more negative compared with 2008, suggesting the group that is most closely divided between President Barack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney is quite dissatisfied with its ability to get fair and accurate news coverage of this election.

On the NBC News homepage for politics, there is a chart looking the number of mentions of each candidate on social media: As of yesterday, 30 percent who state an intention to vote for a candidate on social media sites intend to vote for Obama; 38 percent intend to vote for Romney. There have been nearly 33,000 opinions expressed about Obama: Of those, 40 percent are positive, 60 percent negative. Regarding Romney, 21,500 opinions have been posted: 51 percent positive, 49 percent negative. If these numbers are accurate, it tells me this: People aren't agreeing with what they're seeing and hearing from the mainstream media. And they feel strongly enough to post something online about it.


I feel the same way—I've gotten to the point where I tune out much of the political coverage because it makes my blood pressure so high. Here's an example of what I'm talking about. On that same homepage at NBC News, here are the headlines for today:

1. Romney paid 14.1 percent effective tax rate in 2011
2. Obama's battleground advantage grows
3. Obama hits Romney on 47 percent: 'I don't see a lot of victims'
4. Ryan gets boos at AARP conference
5. Polls: Obama ahead in Colorado, Iowa and Wisconsin
6. Obama swipes at Romney over '47 percent' comments


And yet we know that Romney also gave away $4 million last year to charity; that there are just as many polls showing Romney within the margin of error as show Obama ahead; and that Ryan was also applauded at the AARP conference—but there is no mention of those in the headlines. Apparently NBC feels we need to be reminded twice that Obama disagrees with Romney's '47 percent' comment.

Really? Only six in 10 have a problem with this?

How disingenuous of the author. The poll cited said NOTHING about any particular candidate or issue. That is purely the author's spin.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/149624/majority-continue-distrust-media-perceive-bias.aspx

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

His only chance to defeat him in the election will be lost. I submitted to you all that I had doubts that Romney could run a successfull campaign against Obama.
I will not make excuses for a Romney loss but in my opinion he has run a terrible campaign. Without a sound victory in the debate he WILL lose the election.

I personally think that the fact that he's doing as well as he is in the face of the MSM's full blown assault...

New reputation!
Hi, you have received -999 reputation points from Dr.House.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
gay....

Regards,
Dr.House

Note: This is an automated message.

 

[Seawytch]

Romney, who has been uneven in debates, has to do incredibly well in the debate and the President has to do spectacularly badly if he (Romney) is to have a chance. Not one or the other, both. Odds aren't likely.

Who could forget Willard whining "Anderson, he's taking my time" (paraphrased)

 

[Avorysuds]

See gramps, sometimes you say really stupid chit, then other times you say stuff that is right on, like in this case... Now prepare to be called a liberal, oh wait, they are all ready doing that!! Has anyone told you that your thread is helping elect Obama yet? lol.

Maybe next time people will listen and not elect progressives then demand everyone votes for them. I honesty can’t believe people think they can guild someone into voting for Obama by claiming if you don’t vote for Mitt you’re voting for Obama… Maybe next time someone say that I’ll actually vote for Obama so that way my vote actually cancels out that dumb fucks vote for liberal lite Romney. And RIGHT there people realized the difference between voting for Obama and NOT voting for Obama…

 

[Avorysuds]

With an unbiased media or better educated public, Obama would be losing all 57 states

I 100% agree... But that's because Mitt would not be the nominee.. Sadly the Republican party is full if politically inferior haters who are clueless that their party is shrinking. No new members are joining and many are leaving due to being disenfranchised seeing as the Republican party has shifter so far left.