2012 Presidential Election Run-Up

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]jnd wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]jnd wrote:

The story of Carter leading by 10 points is pure fucking BS. Someone has his nose up Limbaugh’s ass. Check your facts before you perpetuate this myth.

Unemployment was sky high- hostages in Iran, and Carter had a 10 point lead? Bullshit sir.

go ahead, ask me for proof… Nevermind- here it is. Look a bunch of polls all trending towards Reagan. Not one poll- a bunch.

Oh you meant among single adult homes only. That’s the ticket.

jnd[/quote]

I wasn’t sure where you coming from but now I know after reading the slam against Limbaugh. You’re an Obama supporter. Ha…Maybe you can tell us all why Obama deserves reelection.

Anyway, Carter was indeed up by 10 as you will see on my link. And then in late September he was up by as much as 4 points just like your hero Obama! (you like em a lot :slight_smile: come on say it.

So who won that race? Oh yeah that would be Reagan.

Just as I said that lead in late September meant nothing by election day!

So pull your head out of your ass and read some political history.

Start here and then expand:

[/quote]

So you are going to ignore the details of the link that I attached with MANY polls, and focus only on one poll? What’s so special about that poll is that it supports your point of view.

Christ- you are a tool. Push your head further into the sand and keep perpetuating a false idea. You are hopeless.

Now that you “know where I am coming from” you can ignore reality and sit in your echo chamber- but you are still wrong.

Good luck dude- you obviously need it.
jnd[/quote]

The only poll that I showed you was the one that you called me out on.

That poll demonstrated that I was correct. Carter had a 10 point lead on Reagan and a 4 point lead in late September and he didn’t win…which was my point. Or can’t you follow anything for more than a few minutes without getting confused?

You want Obama to win and that’s fine. But be up front about it. Don’t pop onto a thread and claim Obama is going to walk away with it no need for further discussion, without first divulging where you’re coming from. At first I thought you were a little fool. But now I know that is not the case. You are an Obama supporter who will say anything to try to build up your hero, which makes you a big fool.

You’re not interested in a discussion about polls and what drives an election, you are interested in promoting Obama.

We all know now…Got it!

62

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]jnd wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]jnd wrote:

The story of Carter leading by 10 points is pure fucking BS. Someone has his nose up Limbaugh’s ass. Check your facts before you perpetuate this myth.

Unemployment was sky high- hostages in Iran, and Carter had a 10 point lead? Bullshit sir.

go ahead, ask me for proof… Nevermind- here it is. Look a bunch of polls all trending towards Reagan. Not one poll- a bunch.

Oh you meant among single adult homes only. That’s the ticket.

jnd[/quote]

I wasn’t sure where you coming from but now I know after reading the slam against Limbaugh. You’re an Obama supporter. Ha…Maybe you can tell us all why Obama deserves reelection.

Anyway, Carter was indeed up by 10 as you will see on my link. And then in late September he was up by as much as 4 points just like your hero Obama! (you like em a lot :slight_smile: come on say it.

So who won that race? Oh yeah that would be Reagan.

Just as I said that lead in late September meant nothing by election day!

So pull your head out of your ass and read some political history.

Start here and then expand:

[/quote]

So you are going to ignore the details of the link that I attached with MANY polls, and focus only on one poll? What’s so special about that poll is that it supports your point of view.

Christ- you are a tool. Push your head further into the sand and keep perpetuating a false idea. You are hopeless.

Now that you “know where I am coming from” you can ignore reality and sit in your echo chamber- but you are still wrong.

Good luck dude- you obviously need it.
jnd[/quote]

The only poll that I showed you was the one that you called me out on.

That poll demonstrated that I was correct. Carter had a 10 point lead on Reagan and a 4 point lead in late September and he didn’t win…which was my point. Or can’t you follow anything for more than a few minutes without getting confused?

You want Obama to win and that’s fine. But be up front about it. Don’t pop onto a thread and claim Obama is going to walk away with it no need for further discussion, without first divulging where you’re coming from. At first I thought you were a little fool. But now I know that is not the case. You are an Obama supporter who will say anything to try to build up your hero, which makes you a big fool.

You’re not interested in a discussion about polls and what drives an election, you are interested in promoting Obama.

We all know now…Got it!
[/quote]

Last post on this issue because you do not want to acknowledge reality. I will go slowly for you because you need it.

  1. You claiming to know how I will vote does not change anything I claimed.
  2. Calling me an obvious Obama supporter does not discount the things that I pointed out about the Reagan-Carter election of 1980.
  3. You cherry-picking one poll out of several conducted before the 1980 election does not reflect all polls (which was my point about the 2012 race).
  4. The balance of the polls showed a very tight race leading up to the election, with Reagan ahead on most of them (except the cherry-picked poll you crowed about).
  5. you are a know-it-all who speaks with authority on presidential polls but cannot read them at all.
  6. and you are avoiding reality and should just admit that your fiction about the 1980 election is wrong

jnd

63

[quote]jnd wrote:

Last post on this issue because you do not want to acknowledge reality. I will go slowly for you because you need it.[/quote]

I’ve been at this for a while and have dealt with left wing knit wits like you many times in the past. You can go as fast as you like or as slow but just make sure of one thing, try to remember what you post.

But what you claimed was done so because you are voting for Obama. As I told you before some of the greatest political minds in the country are not claiming that Obama has it in the bag. In fact Dick Morris a well respected political analyst and former Bill Clinton campaign advisor states that Romney will win. So, you jumping on this thread saying “it’s over” is obviously prompted by your wish that it would be over because you want your hero to win. Either that or you’re just flat out stupid.

Simple.

The things you said about the Reagan/Carter election were dead wrong! I’ll now tell you for the third time. Carter lead Reagan by 10pts. at one point. And in late September lead him by 4 points. Some thought it was over but as we all know Reagan won.

I can give you many more polls that had Carter ahead by anywhere from 8 to 12 points. And some even had him ahead by 7 points or so as late as Labor Day! It’s history man you should read some of it…very interesting stuff.

Reagan took the lead in October and held onto it. I never said otherwise.

I currently track most of the well known polls been doing it for many years and never had a problem and don’t now. I don’t follow polls by the loony left done by MSNBC but I’ve been tracking the unbiased polls.

[quote]6. and you are avoiding reality and should just admit that your fiction about the 1980 election is wrong
jnd[/quote]

You saw the polling data would you like to see more from 1980? I suppose I can look it up for you. But then what would you cry about then?

“Sniff, sniff polls don’t mean anything Zeb…and…and I hate Rush Limbaugh!”

Go kiss your poster of Obama good night (that hangs on your bedroom wall) and get some sleep. They’ll be plenty of hating for you to do tomorrow.

Just consider this one more lesson in life.

64

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Ohio is the biggest thing for Romney to worry about right now. His own strategists told Politico last week that without Ohio, his road to the white house is extremely difficult. And it’s not looking great right now.[/quote]

That is one of the smartest things said on this thread!

This is an electoral battle not a popular vote battle.

And as you say Romney must win Ohio or he loses the Presidency.

He also must win Florida or he loses. But I think he has a very good chance to win Florida, Ohio is not looking good. And that’s why I questioned his pick of Paul Ryan. While I love Ryan I think politically he should have gone with someone, anyone who could have delivered Ohio. Perhaps Portman would have been a better pick.

[/quote]

I agree completely, I’d have gone with Portman. I actually like the guy too. We’ll see if Ryan’s popularity with the base is enough to justify his pick–it may well be.

If I had to bet from looking at the numbers right now, I’d say Ohio goes blue and Florida red. I do think that turnout will give Romney enough of an edge to overcome a one or two point deficit in the polls, but he should be worried about anything over 4.

Of course, these things change. And I’m sure Ohio is going to see one hell of an ad blitz from Romney. Anyone saying that the race is over is wrong and is setting themselves up to look like a fool. This in particular caught my eye: Why Barack Obama Will Win the Election Easily | The Fiscal Times

[/quote]

Smh, who are you voting for, if you don’t mind telling us?

65

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

This speaks to what you are saying here.[/quote]

"Barack Obama in his grave acceptance speech fears that “this nation’s promise is reserved for the few.”

You know the President is right just for the wrong reasons. The American dream is reserved. Reserved for the few willing to work for it.

[/quote]

Normally I would be really excited to see someone in their mid 20’s post this but I’m just really pissed off man.

Our generation has the choice of greatness at our feet. Think about that. Even though it will be hard, in fact maybe the heaviest cross anyone in our nation’s history will have to bear outside those that give their lives for our freedom, we have the option to choose to be great. We have the choice to act in a way that will demand history looks back on us and views us, yes us, the great defenders of freedom, of free will and of what this great nation is supposed to stand for. We can choose actual change. We can choose to tighten our belts, forget our wants and desires, and to stand for what we know is right. We can shoulder the hard truth and face reality. We can be the very definition of greatness.

Or we can continue down the road we are on now, and let someone else, no force someone else, to carry this burden. All the while knowing that someone else, is our children.

I demand to be held responsible for my actions, and I willingly accept the labor of being responsible for the actions of those not strong enough to choose greatness. But the few cannot carry the collective.

I refuse to force my children to pay the price for our selfishness.

/hijack sorry guys

66

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

This speaks to what you are saying here.[/quote]

"Barack Obama in his grave acceptance speech fears that “this nation’s promise is reserved for the few.”

You know the President is right just for the wrong reasons. The American dream is reserved. Reserved for the few willing to work for it.

[/quote]

Normally I would be really excited to see someone in their mid 20’s post this but I’m just really pissed off man.

Our generation has the choice of greatness at our feet. Think about that. Even though it will be hard, in fact maybe the heaviest cross anyone in our nation’s history will have to bear outside those that give their lives for our freedom, we have the option to choose to be great. We have the choice to act in a way that will demand history looks back on us and views us, yes us, the great defenders of freedom, of free will and of what this great nation is supposed to stand for. We can choose actual change. We can choose to tighten our belts, forget our wants and desires, and to stand for what we know is right. We can shoulder the hard truth and face reality. We can be the very definition of greatness.

Or we can continue down the road we are on now, and let someone else, no force someone else, to carry this burden. All the while knowing that someone else, is our children.

I demand to be held responsible for my actions, and I willingly accept the labor of being responsible for the actions of those not strong enough to choose greatness. But the few cannot carry the collective.

I refuse to force my children to pay the price for our selfishness.

/hijack sorry guys[/quote]

I hear you.

Maybe I’m just an optimist, but I think a lot of the country hears you too. I think things happen in cycles, we’re at a bad part of the cycle, and things almost have to get worse before the majority wakes up. I think it’ll happen and I think as long as this country stays predominantly capitalistic the best and the brightest will stay. Paying 30% in taxes is better than paying 100% that’s for sure.

67

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Ohio is the biggest thing for Romney to worry about right now. His own strategists told Politico last week that without Ohio, his road to the white house is extremely difficult. And it’s not looking great right now.[/quote]

That is one of the smartest things said on this thread!

This is an electoral battle not a popular vote battle.

And as you say Romney must win Ohio or he loses the Presidency.

He also must win Florida or he loses. But I think he has a very good chance to win Florida, Ohio is not looking good. And that’s why I questioned his pick of Paul Ryan. While I love Ryan I think politically he should have gone with someone, anyone who could have delivered Ohio. Perhaps Portman would have been a better pick.

[/quote]

I agree completely, I’d have gone with Portman. I actually like the guy too. We’ll see if Ryan’s popularity with the base is enough to justify his pick–it may well be.

If I had to bet from looking at the numbers right now, I’d say Ohio goes blue and Florida red. I do think that turnout will give Romney enough of an edge to overcome a one or two point deficit in the polls, but he should be worried about anything over 4.

Of course, these things change. And I’m sure Ohio is going to see one hell of an ad blitz from Romney. Anyone saying that the race is over is wrong and is setting themselves up to look like a fool. This in particular caught my eye: Why Barack Obama Will Win the Election Easily | The Fiscal Times

[/quote]

Smh, who are you voting for, if you don’t mind telling us? [/quote]

I wouldn’t mind at all if I knew yet, lol.

I am one of those rare people who actually waits until after the debates to make a final decision. Though most people on here know that I lean to the left, especially on certain but not all social issues, I’m actually pretty centrist all in all, and certainly enough to appreciate (or, more cynically, dislike lol) things about both candidates.

In this case I must admit that I don’t see much to like from either side. I’m actually a bit disgusted with both campaigns–the mudslinging is largely unwarranted (that Mitt Romney is rich or that he worked in private equity are not negative attributes; Obama has never apologized for America and I think that phrase in and of itself is mind-numbingly stupid) and the rest is nebulous drivel–we need more jobs, we need to get people back to work, we need this and that. Neither candidate has actually laid out a vision or set many significant, concrete, and positive goals–you can’t set a goal and then refuse to explicitly tell us which cuts or loophole-closes will pay for it.

Obama has been fumbling for a while and the economy has suffered for it. He shouldn’t have pushed for health care before bringing unemployment down, and he shouldn’t let any tax cuts expire during a time of economic malaise. House obstructionism deserves some of the blame for economy, though, and the debt ceiling crisis was a disgraceful display of political brinkmanship on the part of Republicans. They used American ignorance to try and fulfill McConnell’s promise of making the president a one-term pony, and in the process they hurt the nation without reason. Only a tiny, tiny sliver of the population realizes that the debt ceiling does not have an impact on the amount of debt the United States incurs–it simply affects our ability to pay down obligations that have already been incurred. I’ve been tempted to vote Dem just to punish the right for that one. I also approve strongly of his handling of national security and foreign policy.

On the other hand, Romney has said that he wouldn’t have bailed out GM and Chrysler, which I think is monumentally stupid. And I disagree with him pretty strongly with regard to a lot of foreign policy (this has been exacerbated in recent days). But I like the idea of having a pragmatic businessman in the White House at this time of sluggish recovery, and this may well be enough to trump the cons.

Someone will convince me during one of the debates. I think the debates are underrated by voters, who historically don’t care enough to change many minds. Whoever can better argue intelligently, communicate effectively, and think quickly is probably going to do a better job in Washington.

68

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Ohio is the biggest thing for Romney to worry about right now. His own strategists told Politico last week that without Ohio, his road to the white house is extremely difficult. And it’s not looking great right now.[/quote]

That is one of the smartest things said on this thread!

This is an electoral battle not a popular vote battle.

And as you say Romney must win Ohio or he loses the Presidency.

He also must win Florida or he loses. But I think he has a very good chance to win Florida, Ohio is not looking good. And that’s why I questioned his pick of Paul Ryan. While I love Ryan I think politically he should have gone with someone, anyone who could have delivered Ohio. Perhaps Portman would have been a better pick.

[/quote]

I agree completely, I’d have gone with Portman. I actually like the guy too. We’ll see if Ryan’s popularity with the base is enough to justify his pick–it may well be.

If I had to bet from looking at the numbers right now, I’d say Ohio goes blue and Florida red. I do think that turnout will give Romney enough of an edge to overcome a one or two point deficit in the polls, but he should be worried about anything over 4.

Of course, these things change. And I’m sure Ohio is going to see one hell of an ad blitz from Romney. Anyone saying that the race is over is wrong and is setting themselves up to look like a fool. This in particular caught my eye: Why Barack Obama Will Win the Election Easily | The Fiscal Times

[/quote]

Smh, who are you voting for, if you don’t mind telling us? [/quote]

I wouldn’t mind at all if I knew yet, lol.

I am one of those rare people who actually waits until after the debates to make a final decision. Though most people on here know that I lean to the left, especially on certain but not all social issues, I’m actually pretty centrist all in all, and certainly enough to appreciate (or, more cynically, dislike lol) things about both candidates.

In this case I must admit that I don’t see much to like from either side. I’m actually a bit disgusted with both campaigns–the mudslinging is largely unwarranted (that Mitt Romney is rich or that he worked in private equity are not negative attributes; Obama has never apologized for America and I think that phrase in and of itself is mind-numbingly stupid) and the rest is nebulous drivel–we need more jobs, we need to get people back to work, we need this and that. Neither candidate has actually laid out a vision or set many significant, concrete, and positive goals–you can’t set a goal and then refuse to explicitly tell us which cuts or loophole-closes will pay for it.

Obama has been fumbling for a while and the economy has suffered for it. He shouldn’t have pushed for health care before bringing unemployment down, and he shouldn’t let any tax cuts expire during a time of economic malaise. House obstructionism deserves some of the blame for economy, though, and the debt ceiling crisis was a disgraceful display of political brinkmanship on the part of Republicans. They used American ignorance to try and fulfill McConnell’s promise of making the president a one-term pony, and in the process they hurt the nation without reason. Only a tiny, tiny sliver of the population realizes that the debt ceiling does not have an impact on the amount of debt the United States incurs–it simply affects our ability to pay down obligations that have already been incurred. I’ve been tempted to vote Dem just to punish the right for that one. I also approve strongly of his handling of national security and foreign policy.

On the other hand, Romney has said that he wouldn’t have bailed out GM and Chrysler, which I think is monumentally stupid. And I disagree with him pretty strongly with regard to a lot of foreign policy (this has been exacerbated in recent days). But I like the idea of having a pragmatic businessman in the White House at this time of sluggish recovery, and this may well be enough to trump the cons.

Someone will convince me during one of the debates. I think the debates are underrated by voters, who historically don’t care enough to change many minds. Whoever can better argue intelligently, communicate effectively, and think quickly is probably going to do a better job in Washington. [/quote]

I wish you would stop with these intelligent in depth answers…SHEESH!

69

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Ohio is the biggest thing for Romney to worry about right now. His own strategists told Politico last week that without Ohio, his road to the white house is extremely difficult. And it’s not looking great right now.[/quote]

That is one of the smartest things said on this thread!

This is an electoral battle not a popular vote battle.

And as you say Romney must win Ohio or he loses the Presidency.

He also must win Florida or he loses. But I think he has a very good chance to win Florida, Ohio is not looking good. And that’s why I questioned his pick of Paul Ryan. While I love Ryan I think politically he should have gone with someone, anyone who could have delivered Ohio. Perhaps Portman would have been a better pick.

[/quote]

I agree completely, I’d have gone with Portman. I actually like the guy too. We’ll see if Ryan’s popularity with the base is enough to justify his pick–it may well be.

If I had to bet from looking at the numbers right now, I’d say Ohio goes blue and Florida red. I do think that turnout will give Romney enough of an edge to overcome a one or two point deficit in the polls, but he should be worried about anything over 4.

Of course, these things change. And I’m sure Ohio is going to see one hell of an ad blitz from Romney. Anyone saying that the race is over is wrong and is setting themselves up to look like a fool. This in particular caught my eye: Why Barack Obama Will Win the Election Easily | The Fiscal Times

[/quote]

Smh, who are you voting for, if you don’t mind telling us? [/quote]

I wouldn’t mind at all if I knew yet, lol.

I am one of those rare people who actually waits until after the debates to make a final decision. Though most people on here know that I lean to the left, especially on certain but not all social issues, I’m actually pretty centrist all in all, and certainly enough to appreciate (or, more cynically, dislike lol) things about both candidates.

In this case I must admit that I don’t see much to like from either side. I’m actually a bit disgusted with both campaigns–the mudslinging is largely unwarranted (that Mitt Romney is rich or that he worked in private equity are not negative attributes; Obama has never apologized for America and I think that phrase in and of itself is mind-numbingly stupid) and the rest is nebulous drivel–we need more jobs, we need to get people back to work, we need this and that. Neither candidate has actually laid out a vision or set many significant, concrete, and positive goals–you can’t set a goal and then refuse to explicitly tell us which cuts or loophole-closes will pay for it.

Obama has been fumbling for a while and the economy has suffered for it. He shouldn’t have pushed for health care before bringing unemployment down, and he shouldn’t let any tax cuts expire during a time of economic malaise. House obstructionism deserves some of the blame for economy, though, and the debt ceiling crisis was a disgraceful display of political brinkmanship on the part of Republicans. They used American ignorance to try and fulfill McConnell’s promise of making the president a one-term pony, and in the process they hurt the nation without reason. Only a tiny, tiny sliver of the population realizes that the debt ceiling does not have an impact on the amount of debt the United States incurs–it simply affects our ability to pay down obligations that have already been incurred. I’ve been tempted to vote Dem just to punish the right for that one. I also approve strongly of his handling of national security and foreign policy.

On the other hand, Romney has said that he wouldn’t have bailed out GM and Chrysler, which I think is monumentally stupid. And I disagree with him pretty strongly with regard to a lot of foreign policy (this has been exacerbated in recent days). But I like the idea of having a pragmatic businessman in the White House at this time of sluggish recovery, and this may well be enough to trump the cons.

Someone will convince me during one of the debates. I think the debates are underrated by voters, who historically don’t care enough to change many minds. Whoever can better argue intelligently, communicate effectively, and think quickly is probably going to do a better job in Washington. [/quote]

I wish you would stop with these intelligent in depth answers…SHEESH!

[/quote]

Hahaha, that’s much appreciated man

70

[quote]smh23 wrote:

Someone will convince me during one of the debates. I think the debates are underrated by voters, who historically don’t care enough to change many minds. Whoever can better argue intelligently, communicate effectively, and think quickly is probably going to do a better job in Washington.
[/quote]

I think most people don’t care about the debates because you have to actually listen for more than 30 seconds and consider what the candidates are saying. Fat chance that’ll happen while honey boo boo or whatever other garbage is on.

I actually think when campaigning for the presidency the primary focus should be on the debates. We should:

  1. Increase the number and frequency and,
  2. Put a cap on the amount of money that can be spent on advertisement

That way the main message is sent through debate. The presidency shouldn’t be a sales pitch, which of course it is. Hell I bet the ShameWow (sp?) guy could win an election!

Chris

71

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

Someone will convince me during one of the debates. I think the debates are underrated by voters, who historically don’t care enough to change many minds. Whoever can better argue intelligently, communicate effectively, and think quickly is probably going to do a better job in Washington.
[/quote]

I think most people don’t care about the debates because you have to actually listen for more than 30 seconds and consider what the candidates are saying. Fat chance that’ll happen while honey boo boo or whatever other garbage is on.

I actually think when campaigning for the presidency the primary focus should be on the debates. We should:

  1. Increase the number and frequency and,
  2. Put a cap on the amount of money that can be spent on advertisement

That way the main message is sent through debate. The presidency shouldn’t be a sales pitch, which of course it is. Hell I bet the ShameWow (sp?) guy could win an election!

Chris
[/quote]

I could not agree more with this.

72

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:<<< I think most people don’t care about the debates because you have to actually listen for more than 30 seconds and consider what the candidates are saying. >>>[/quote]I don’t care about campaigns, nevermind debates LOL!! I know everything I’ll need to know about a candidate a couple hours after they’ve announced. Their record tells all. They will SAY EH NEE THANG to get elected. All of em. Only their record tells what to actually expect. Obama’s a Marxist and Romney’s a liberal wearing a very cheap conservative disguise. I’ve known that forever. Can we have the election now please?

73

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:<<< I think most people don’t care about the debates because you have to actually listen for more than 30 seconds and consider what the candidates are saying. >>>[/quote]I don’t care about campaigns, nevermind debates LOL!! I know everything I’ll need to know about a candidate a couple hours after they’ve announced. Their record tells all. They will SAY EH NEE THANG to get elected. All of em. Only their record tells what to actually expect. Obama’s a Marxist and Romney’s a liberal wearing a very cheap conservative disguise. I’ve known that forever. Can we have the election now please?
[/quote]

I don’t think the past always reflects the present or future. Do you really know why a person acted the way they did in the past? There could have been a hundred reasons to, for example, vote a certain way on a bill. It’s a, you scratch my back I’ll scratch yours, kind of world. That is only part of the picture when it comes to anyone, let alone the president.

You can really only guess as to what Romney will do if elected. Just like a few years ago everyone could just guess what Obama would do. I want to hear what they have to say in a pressure situation and compare that to their record.

Making up your mind before having all the information out there is part of the problem.

74

I’ve been doin this awhile now friend. I do have all the information that’s ever mattered in any election in my lifetime. They never let me down. ESPECIALLY when they DEFEND their record like Romney is. Mark my words. If elected he will bring no surprises. Massachusetts tells the story. Obama I had pegged instantly waaaaay back in the spring of 08. Marxist enemy. I said so right here and he has not failed to prove me right. All this campaign crap is to me a yawn inducing way to pass the time until November.

75

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I’ve been doin this awhile now friend. I do have all the information that’s ever mattered in any election in my lifetime. They never let me down. ESPECIALLY when they DEFEND their record like Romney is. Mark my words. If elected he will bring no surprises. Massachusetts tells the story. Obama I had pegged instantly waaaaay back in the spring of 08. Marxist enemy. I said so right here and he has not failed to prove me right. All this campaign crap is to me a yawn inducing way to pass the time until November. [/quote]

Well that’s certainly your prerogative, but it isn’t mine.

76

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I’ve been doin this awhile now friend. I do have all the information that’s ever mattered in any election in my lifetime. They never let me down. ESPECIALLY when they DEFEND their record like Romney is. Mark my words. If elected he will bring no surprises. Massachusetts tells the story. Obama I had pegged instantly waaaaay back in the spring of 08. Marxist enemy. I said so right here and he has not failed to prove me right. All this campaign crap is to me a yawn inducing way to pass the time until November. [/quote]

Romney ruled more center left in Mass because it is a left leaning state. As President he would govern center right. If you know anything about politics you know that.

77

What does “center right” mean anymore? NOT Marxist? We’re saved!!!

78

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
What does “center right” mean anymore? NOT Marxist? We’re saved!!![/quote]

The country leans center right Tirib. If you don’t know what that means then there is no point in any further discussion regarding politics.

79

This country has no idea WHAT it is anymore.

80

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
This country has no idea WHAT it is anymore.[/quote]

Not true, it means that if they were to fill out a questionnaire regarding various topics of the day from taxes to abortion and everything in between as a nation we would fall center right.

Don’t get the Presidential election confused with people’s notion of conservatism. As I’ve said many times the Presidential race is very close to a beauty contest with the majority of Americans. Obama has a great smile and more charisma than Romney therefore he is the favorite.

Those who try to make more of it than that are fooling themselves. The specific candidates dictate how people vote nothing more. When Reagan served 8 years and then Bush (41) another four we had 12 years of a republican in the White House and people were saying the democratic party is dead. It had nothing to do with either party. All it meant was that Reagan looked and sounded better than Jimmy Carter (that’s why debates are important. Not just for what they say but how they say it). After giving Reagan four years he did a great job. Then who did the democrats put up against him? Walter Mondale, so obviously Reagan had four more years.

Along Comes George Bush a tall confident man who goes up against Michael Dukakis a man who could have been George Burns (the old comedian) son. Naturally Bush won. But what happened when Bush faced a young charismatic Southern Governor named Bill Clinton?

And on and on and on…However, if everyone were aware of this there would be little need for political analysts.

Party and “values” mean little to the American public when voting for President. They just don’t go that deep! If they did Obama would never have been elected.

Sorry I spent so much time on this…