Neck and Neck

[JoeB131]

Uh,no.
Obama won many states by 1 or 2 points. Any swing back, and most of those states have above average UE, will move it to Romney.
Romney is planning on going into safe states for Obama. Obama has given up Florida. Which team has momentum here?

Actually, most of the Swing States have below average UE rates.

And Obama hasn't given up in Florida, I don't even know where you get that shit.

(Probably the same place you got Rick Perry would be an awesome nominee because he was about as retarded as you are!)

 

[Shelzin]

If the Republicans chose the wrong candidate then why isn't Obama way ahead. That's my point.

Oh... No... See... *I* think that 4 years of a shit presidency that Obama has shown should mean whoever ran against him would basically be a shoe in.

But this is just like Bush's second term when Kerry ran against him. What the fuck were the democrats thinking by going with Kerry?

Well... Here it's the same way I think. What the fuck were the republicans thinking when they went with Willard?

To be fair, the GOP didn’t have much of a choice.

Those who could have beaten Obama elected to wait for 2016, after Obama’s second term – which is a smart move given the republican nominee that year will be the next president.

I don't believe that. I think they have just as good a chance this election as next. They just need to actually put up someone worthy to vote for.

 

[candycorn]

Romney pulled ahead in NC and is probably leading in FL, which the Democrats have written off.
Iowa is a dead heat, with Romney pulling up. The largest sample of likely voters puts Romney ahead of Obama in Michigan.
Nope, your boy is done. Stick a fork in him. We still have the debates to go and Romney will go to town on Obama for his record of failures and poor performance.

Then you should accept my challenge. Oh wait, you didn't REALLY mean any of that what you just said, right?

I'd settle for total capitulation on your part.

Thats what I thought...you're all talk boy. Must suck to not have the 'nads to back up your statements.

 

[The Rabbi]

Then you should accept my challenge. Oh wait, you didn't REALLY mean any of that what you just said, right?

I'd settle for total capitulation on your part.

Thats what I thought...you're all talk boy. Must suck to not have the 'nads to back up your statements.

If I win I'll fuck you. How's that?

 

[Truthseeker420]

For all practical purposes the race is still too close for either to claim victory.

The question is why?

If Obama is a man of the people and Romney out of touch...

If Obamacare is wanted by so many Americans.

If Michelle is Mrs. Wonderful but Ann Romney is a Stepford Wife.

If Obama is likable, Romney is not.

If Dems are the future and Republicans are the past.

If there are more registered Dems than Republicans.

If Obama was a successful Senator and Romney a failed Governor.

I could go on...

So why isn't a so called great President neck and neck with a so called weak candidate.

BTW, Obama said after Eastwood's speech Republicans are living n the past YET he drags out Clinton whose shoes he isn't fit to shine.

He should be way out in front especially since the Dems swear up and down that his policies are working.

I'm not sure I buy all those ifs but money is a big factor and Democrats are less partisan/ loyal than Republicans.

 

[FA_Q2]

Oh... No... See... *I* think that 4 years of a shit presidency that Obama has shown should mean whoever ran against him would basically be a shoe in.

But this is just like Bush's second term when Kerry ran against him. What the fuck were the democrats thinking by going with Kerry?

Well... Here it's the same way I think. What the fuck were the republicans thinking when they went with Willard?

To be fair, the GOP didn’t have much of a choice.

Those who could have beaten Obama elected to wait for 2016, after Obama’s second term – which is a smart move given the republican nominee that year will be the next president.

I don't believe that. I think they have just as good a chance this election as next. They just need to actually put up someone worthy to vote for.

An incumbent is ALWAYS harder to beat and the further we get from Bush, the better off the candidates are. No, this was a bad year for many of the republican hopefuls and the next election will be much better if Obama wins this one.

I'm not sure I buy all those ifs but money is a big factor and Democrats are less partisan/ loyal than Republicans.

Sure, whatever helps you get over your hackery.

For all practical purposes the race is still too close for either to claim victory.

The question is why?

If Obama is a man of the people and Romney out of touch...

If Obamacare is wanted by so many Americans.

If Michelle is Mrs. Wonderful but Ann Romney is a Stepford Wife.

If Obama is likable, Romney is not.

If Dems are the future and Republicans are the past.

If there are more registered Dems than Republicans.

If Obama was a successful Senator and Romney a failed Governor.

I could go on...

So why isn't a so called great President neck and neck with a so called weak candidate.

BTW, Obama said after Eastwood's speech Republicans are living n the past YET he drags out Clinton whose shoes he isn't fit to shine.

He should be way out in front especially since the Dems swear up and down that his policies are working.

Why is a good question? I believe it is due to the hyper partisanship that is occurring atm. All you have to look at is the undecided vote and how small it is. None of those factors matter to hacks. None of the counter arguments matter to hacks. This year there is a LOT of hacks too. I am not sure it has anything to do with candidates at all but is squarely related to the overly divided atmosphere that exists today.