It’s a few days old. It predicted that 'things will look grim" for Romney if Obama’s post-convention bounce puts him 5 or six points ahead. Today, CNN has him 6 up, Rasmussen 5. I found it surprising: I honestly didn’t expect things to look this good for Obama at this point in time. Since the end of the primary I’ve thought that the election was Romney’s to lose, but things don’t seem to be developing in that direction, especially with a now 75% chance that Ohio goes blue.
The debates probably won’t do much to change the map significantly. Of course, things could change drastically for a couple of reasons between now and November. But is anyone else surprised about this?[/quote]
I don’t think the post-convention bounce will sustain, and the news cycle is about to dominated by Woodward’s new book, which is pretty critical of Obama in the debt-fiscal standoff. That will get baked into the polling mix, and I wouldn’t be surprised if that lets the air out of the bounce.
Plus, Romney has barely spent a fraction of his war-chest.
It’s a few days old. It predicted that 'things will look grim" for Romney if Obama’s post-convention bounce puts him 5 or six points ahead. Today, CNN has him 6 up, Rasmussen 5. I found it surprising: I honestly didn’t expect things to look this good for Obama at this point in time. Since the end of the primary I’ve thought that the election was Romney’s to lose, but things don’t seem to be developing in that direction, especially with a now 75% chance that Ohio goes blue.
The debates probably won’t do much to change the map significantly. Of course, things could change drastically for a couple of reasons between now and November. But is anyone else surprised about this?[/quote]
Not suprised at all. Americans by and large aren’t into responsibility anymore, so everyone up there saying it is okay to blame everything other than your own actions for failure is right up their ally. Plus people are eating up this class warfare shit like cake.
Add in Obama is an incumbant, and he will win.
I was called a “tough nut to crack” because I destroyed talking point after talking point last night on facebook with links to the governments own website, and critical thinking. This proves to me, the vast majority are going to re-elect this clown on some shimmer of promises long sense proven false.
And honestly, I hope shit stays this bad. Fuck em. You get what you deserve.[/quote]
I agree Obama will win . Not because he is so great .It is because Mitt is so lame
Yes, because the same people that complain about overseas jobs from iPhones, complain about mega-corps while shipping at Wal-Mart and cheering the GM bailout, and bitch about Wall St while “the one” appoints them to Sec Treasury actually are allowed to vote.
Here is why Obama is likely to win, and the republican party likely to wander in the wilderness.
Over at Powerline, John Hinderaker has penned a much-discussed post asking “Why Is This Election Close” The economy is in miserable shape, and ‘hope and change’ is a punchline, but tens of millions of Americans are still clinging to the Democrats:
[i]I am afraid the answer may be that the country is closer to the point of no return than most of us believed. With over 100 million Americans receiving federal welfare benefits, millions more going on Social Security disability, and many millions on top of that living on entitlement programs--not to mention enormous numbers of public employees--we may have gotten to the point where the government economy is more important, in the short term, than the real economy. My father, the least cynical of men, used to quote a political philosopher to the effect that democracy will work until people figure out they can vote themselves money. I fear that time may have come.[/i]
He continues:
I am afraid the problem in this year’s race is economic self-interest: we are perilously close to the point where 50% of our population cares more about the money it gets (or expects to get) from government than about the well-being of the nation as a whole. Throw in a few confused students, pro-abortion fanatics, etc., and you have a Democratic majority.
I think Hinderaker is right, but he understates the extent of the problem. Big government is attractive not merely to those receiving benefits, but also to idealists on the other end of the economic spectrum. For them, big government represents delegated virtue–it’s a way to take care of the poor, the elderly, the disabled without, you know, actually doing anything yourself. During my total-immersion days in the heart of the liberal establishment (Ivy League law schools, Manhattan law firm, Center City Philadelphia non-profit), I encountered hundreds of liberal idealists with a bulletproof sense of moral superiority even as they did nothing of consequence to actually serve their fellow man. For them, ‘advocacy’ was service, higher tax rates were charity, and the actual poor and sick were rarely in their proximity.
For some time, the Democratic party has been the party of the bookends: with Democratic support strongest amongst the poor and uneducated, generally declining with income and education, but then reemerging at the highest education and income levels. It’s a coalition of economic dependents and their ?virtuous? caretakers.
The uncharitable, self-congratulatory liberal elite has pulled off one of the greatest P.R. con jobs of all time. They’ve successfully sold to millions of Americans the idea that religious conservatives–those most likely to volunteer their time and give their money to help those less fortunate–are uncaring, greedy, haters.
Moral superiority without sacrifice: It?s a seductive lifestyle.
It’s a few days old. It predicted that 'things will look grim" for Romney if Obama’s post-convention bounce puts him 5 or six points ahead. Today, CNN has him 6 up, Rasmussen 5. I found it surprising: I honestly didn’t expect things to look this good for Obama at this point in time. Since the end of the primary I’ve thought that the election was Romney’s to lose, but things don’t seem to be developing in that direction, especially with a now 75% chance that Ohio goes blue.
The debates probably won’t do much to change the map significantly. Of course, things could change drastically for a couple of reasons between now and November. But is anyone else surprised about this?[/quote]
I don’t think the post-convention bounce will sustain, and the news cycle is about to dominated by Woodward’s new book, which is pretty critical of Obama in the debt-fiscal standoff. That will get baked into the polling mix, and I wouldn’t be surprised if that lets the air out of the bounce.
Plus, Romney has barely spent a fraction of his war-chest.[/quote]
The bounce is just that, a bounce. But the bigger the bounce, the more it reflects a favorite (I believe that there are two exceptions to that rule in modern politics: Dole and Obama '08). And Obama’s has been much bigger than Romney’s.
Hadn’t thought of the effects of Woodward’s book on the election. Could certainly be a factor.
Yes, because the same people that complain about overseas jobs from iPhones, complain about mega-corps while shipping at Wal-Mart and cheering the GM bailout, and bitch about Wall St while “the one” appoints them to Sec Treasury actually are allowed to vote.
[/quote]
Your right while I do not SHIP at Wal-mart , I do cheer the GM bail out . Right or wrong it worked and America is better for it
Yes, because the same people that complain about overseas jobs from iPhones, complain about mega-corps while shipping at Wal-Mart and cheering the GM bailout, and bitch about Wall St while “the one” appoints them to Sec Treasury actually are allowed to vote.
[/quote]
Your right while I do not SHIP at Wal-mart , I do cheer the GM bail out . Right or wrong it worked and America is better for it
[/quote]
lol, calling out typos pitt? Come on, I make plenty.
andwho, you may have missed the article from earlier today that I posted about them losing like 50k a car. I mean this isn’t the first time to government has had to bail out american car makers. Why are we continuing to give money to companies that don’t know who to make profits?
How is America better off for saving a company that can’t make money? Because we didn’t face the short term pain? But rather pump resources into a FUBAR model rather than into a model that works?
Come on. Short term did it prop-up some jobs and communitiees? Sure. Long term it sucks for our economy.
Yes, because the same people that complain about overseas jobs from iPhones, complain about mega-corps while shipping at Wal-Mart and cheering the GM bailout, and bitch about Wall St while “the one” appoints them to Sec Treasury actually are allowed to vote.
[/quote]
Your right while I do not SHIP at Wal-mart , I do cheer the GM bail out . Right or wrong it worked and America is better for it
[/quote]
They want to government out of their womb right?[/quote]
One of the great lies of modern political movements.
[/quote]
I found this…
“Also at the Chiaroscuro Foundationâ??s request, the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene revealed that in 2009 48,627 of the 87,273 abortions in New York City, or 56%, were repeat abortions. 33,401, 38%, were paid for by [u]Medicaid.[/u]”
But my point being, if they move the abortion to a different organization, then no need to worry about the funding stopping right?
Lets just have one organization, funded by private dollars, that does the abortions rather than tax dollars.
They want to government out of their womb right?[/quote]
Can’t say I speak for women but I would guess that would be acceptable compromise if restrictions and access to abortion were almost completely removed.
-Get rid of the 20 week rule
Stop forcing women to get invasive trans-vaginal ultrasounds prior to having an abortion (something I’m against)
-Cease enacting legislation that make it difficult to access abortion
-Stop trying to enact legislation that would make IVF illegal
-Remove parental signature requirements when girl is underage
Are you willing to make these compromises in exchange? Or is it more of a complicated issue than just small/big government?
But my point being, if they move the abortion to a different organization, then no need to worry about the funding stopping right?
Lets just have one organization, funded by private dollars, that does the abortions rather than tax dollars.
They want to government out of their womb right?[/quote]
Can’t say I speak for women but I would guess that would be acceptable compromise if restrictions and access to abortion were almost completely removed.
-Get rid of the 20 week rule
Stop forcing women to get invasive trans-vaginal ultrasounds prior to having an abortion (something I’m against)
-Cease enacting legislation that make it difficult to access abortion
-Stop trying to enact legislation that would make IVF illegal
-Remove parental signature requirements when girl is underage
Are you willing to make these compromises in exchange? Or is it more of a complicated issue than just small/big government?[/quote]
Like I said, make the clinic purely free market. Then it is between the parents, doctor and their god if they have one.
Ab-so-fucking-lut-ly not. No way on god’s green earth should this ever, every be allowed.
No, just no.
After being a teenager, and now raising one, and the father of a daughter, that might be the single dumbest thing I’ve every heard, no offense.