- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,023
- 47,212
- 2,180
it wasn't a mistake given the alternative.
and you guys haven't provided anyone who is a good alternative.
so there ya go.
A dead carp would be a good alternative to Obama.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
it wasn't a mistake given the alternative.
and you guys haven't provided anyone who is a good alternative.
so there ya go.
Wow, sounds like you are getting a bit desperate, aren't you. YOu've shoved your weird Mormon Robot down people's throats and now that he's going to lose, you are grasping for straws.
1) If the economy was "improving" in those other elections, it's improving now. It's off it's highs of 10%.
2) The Republicans lost badly in 1932 because theywere completely in control of all aspects of the government at that point- both houses of Congress and the Presidency and had been for 12 years. Obama can (and will) blame the GOP.
3) 2010 was a lot of Republican rage, but really, like all Midterms, most people didn't vote. Only about 70 million people voted in 2010 compared to some 130 million in 2008. So it's an apples to oranges comparison.
I think that there was a lot of energy created by the TEA movement, but that's been tempered by its villification in the media and the fact that the GOP establishment is doing just about all it can to renounce the TEA Party.
Mr Confirmation Bias, it's you who is getting desperate, projecting and hating and seeing conspiracy theories and pimping Obama.
It's pretty sad, really.
Sorry, Champ. There is a BIG difference between 5% unemployment and 8% unemployment. This is one the weakest recoveries on record. Unlike those other times, the economy is trending well below capacity.
If employment growth really starts accelerate, however, and unemployment is 7%-7.5%, then the calculus changes.
And the Democrats could lose the WH and the Senate but make gains in the House.
Nope. 70 million is reflective of the will of the population. Pollsters know that a sample size of 1,000 is accurate to within 3% of the actual mean 95% of the time. 70 million is statistically accurate to within 0% of the mean, 100% of the time for a voting population of 220 million, i.e. meaning there is practically zero chance it is wrong. Statistics 101.
Despite your paranoia showing through yet again, there is some truth to that. But that doesn't matter to the Tea Party, does it? The Tea Party hates Obama, the base will vote for Romney, and Independents and moderates will decide this election, like they usually do.
For all the apathy Romney generates within Republicans where you want some emotion, there's a flip side to that coin. He generates a lot of apathy within Democrats, meaning there isn't as much emotion driving people to get out and vote anti-Republican as there was in 2008 if Romney is the candidate.
For all the apathy Romney generates within Republicans where you want some emotion, there's a flip side to that coin. He generates a lot of apathy within Democrats, meaning there isn't as much emotion driving people to get out and vote anti-Republican as there was in 2008 if Romney is the candidate.
Don't buy that. Dems were pretty apathetic about McCain, but they still came out and gave Obama the largest vote total in AMerican history.
For all the apathy Romney generates within Republicans where you want some emotion, there's a flip side to that coin. He generates a lot of apathy within Democrats, meaning there isn't as much emotion driving people to get out and vote anti-Republican as there was in 2008 if Romney is the candidate.
Don't buy that. Dems were pretty apathetic about McCain, but they still came out and gave Obama the largest vote total in AMerican history.
A large part of that vote total was the young vote who fully bought into the whole "Hope & Change" thing. They've had three years of reality now to better understand that Barack Obama is just another politician. If you think that youth vote is going to turn out for Obama like they did last time I think you're sorely mistaken. Same with many of the Independents. They voted for an idea last time more than a man. The reality of Barack Obama for them has been just as underwhelming as it was for the kids.
Obama was beating Romney in the polls when it was at 9.3, he's beating him now that it's down to 8.5%. What makes you think that 7% will make that much of a difference?
RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama
His current lead is 2.2 on the RCP average. but if you look at the graph, he's really been comforably ahead of him the whole time. And that's before he whips out his 1 Billion dollar buzzsaw.
Uh. No. Independents don't decide jack shit. They go with the flow. And the flow will not be with the party that runs the guy under the theory, "He was the best we could come up with. No, Really."
Maybe. But honestly, I haven't talked to anyone yet who've told me, "I voted for Obama, and what a horrible mistake that was." .
Obama was beating Romney in the polls when it was at 9.3, he's beating him now that it's down to 8.5%. What makes you think that 7% will make that much of a difference?
RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama
His current lead is 2.2 on the RCP average. but if you look at the graph, he's really been comforably ahead of him the whole time. And that's before he whips out his 1 Billion dollar buzzsaw.
By your logic, then, you should support Romney because he does better against Obama than all the other candidates.
Obama +8.8 v Gingrich
Obama +7.7 v Paul
Obama +10 v Santorum
Obama +12.5 v Perry.
I'm not predicting Romney is going to win. I don't know who is going to win. I'm saying Romney has the best chance. Thus far, you have shown zero, zip, nada to suggest otherwise other than "He's a Mormon and I hate Mormons" and "I hate capitalism and Romney is a capitalist."
BTW, what was Reagan polling against Carter a year before the election? Hmm?
Listen über-RINO, as much as you like to rah-rah the party that left you a long time ago, you can't win without independents, no matter how much your misplaced partisanship otherwise wants.
izz this poll working the way the pollster hoped it would.. cause it looks to me like most folks had the intelligence then and they have it now.. and they didn't vote for dick tater.
izz this poll working the way the pollster hoped it would.. cause it looks to me like most folks had the intelligence then and they have it now.. and they didn't vote for dick tater.
No, it's working the way I expected.
People who voted for McCain last time are voting not voting for Obama this time, either. People who voted for Obama last time are voting for Obama. One guy claims he voted for Obama (yet claims he's a Republican. No, really!) last time but won't this time.
Put that on a national level, 69 million people voted for Obama last time. Romney has to get some of those folks to change their minds while not losing anyone who voted for McCain last time to third parties or staying home.
In short, I'm not hearing from anyone who was an Obama supporter last time who is now going to be a Romney supporter.
I think some casual independents will change their vote.
But mostly what I expect to happen is that large numbers of shallow people who swelled into the polling places on the crest of the hope-and-change, "we're making history" wave will just not be motivated to vote in 2012.
Republicans will continue to be motivated to get Obama out. That will be our advantage.
I think some casual independents will change their vote.
But mostly what I expect to happen is that large numbers of shallow people who swelled into the polling places on the crest of the hope-and-change, "we're making history" wave will just not be motivated to vote in 2012.
Republicans will continue to be motivated to get Obama out. That will be our advantage.
I don't see anyone getting "motivated" for Reversable Mittens.
By that logic, Bush should have lost in 2004, because, man, there were a bunch of people on the other side that just hated his guts. Hate so thick you can cut it with a knife. Some of these people STILL have a hate-on for Bush after he left 3 years ago.
You really can't win being against an incumbant. You have to be FOR someone. Reagan and Clinton won because they were inspiring characters. Hate doesn't get you to the finish line.
Sadly, no one on the GOP inspires me at this point. I'll be happy if they nominate someone I could vote for without puking.
Snarkey hasn't figured out he's on ignore yet.
Obama was beating Romney in the polls when it was at 9.3, he's beating him now that it's down to 8.5%. What makes you think that 7% will make that much of a difference?
RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama
His current lead is 2.2 on the RCP average. but if you look at the graph, he's really been comforably ahead of him the whole time. And that's before he whips out his 1 Billion dollar buzzsaw.
By your logic, then, you should support Romney because he does better against Obama than all the other candidates.
Obama +8.8 v Gingrich
Obama +7.7 v Paul
Obama +10 v Santorum
Obama +12.5 v Perry.
I think the difference is, other than Gingrich, those guys are still kind of introducing themselves. Romney's a known quantity, he's been at this for a second time now. As Iowa has shown, opinions on him haven't changed any.
Also, I honestly would rather lose standing on principles than lose giving them up hoping to win.
You also can't win without Evangelicals, who will desert in droves.
you can't win without Hispanic support, which Romney will lose because of his race-baiting.
You can't win without working folks, which you will lose when they start educating folks on how how Romney made his money.
You can't win without women, and when folks find out how ass-backwards Mormons are on gender issues, you can kiss that group goodbye.
Democrats always said they wished more Republicans were like McCain. Until he got the nomination, and he became the anti-Christ.
It's really hard for me to believe he could have done a worse job than Obama.