I sure hope the implication of this charisma talk isn’t that Romney has any. Romney isn’t winning this by selling himself and his ‘vision.’
Razorslim,
If you did your research correctly you’ll see that there was a third party candidate who took almost 6 million votes. The candidates name was John Anderson and he was left of Jimmy Carter. Most of those votes would have gone to Carter. At the time we had the worst economy since the great depression. And for Carter to do as well as he did was shear testimony to his personal charisma and nothing more, as he did nothing else correctly. It was more of an electoral blow out than a popular vote blow out which Reagan did have in 1984 when he beat Walter rmondale by 18% points! Now that’s domination!
Yeah, I know nothing new with your assessment. You don’t like his policies therefore he has no charisma YAWN!!!
Those of us who are objective enough to separate our dislike for his policies with the actual man know differently. More importantly history has taught us that Obama’s charisma was well over the top vs John McCain. And that is really all that matters right?
LOL Newt’s negatives are up so high they need to wear an oxygen mask. Once again you LIKE Gingrich so you think he’s a really inspiring and interesting candidate, fair enough.
[quote]Romney is stiff and comes off as repeating rehearsed lines while Newt comes off as speaking from his heart and from core convictions. I bet Romney put in about 10x the debate prep as Newt or Santorum put in.
[/quote]
And you want Gingrich to beat Romney for the nomination so you are once again projecting.
As for the rest of your post about Romney working hard----REALLY? (eye roll)
“Um…the only reason that one fighter won was because he worked harder…um…otherwise he’d a lost fo sho…uh huh he would have”
Hey, find a primary and go vote for Newt Gingrich…(shrugs) but don’t try to peddle him here as having charisma just because you like him. Or, claim that Obama has no charisma because you don’t like him. You’re a poor judge of candidate flesh and very obviously biased.
The average American voter does not have that bias. They don’t come from any type of political preference like you or I.
You are not the typical American voter- You are much, must smarter and involved (and hey that’s a good thing). You are someone who actually votes on the issues most people don’t. The average American will come out of their non-political cocoon sometime after labor day take a look at both candidates make a gut choice on how he feels and that’s pretty much that. And keep in mind that about 50% of the people won’t even vote!
Sad, but true. Anyway you are unique–And good for you!
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’m telling you folks, Romney has no chance of winning. None. [/quote]
But Gingrich who scores lower in the female vote, lower with senior citizens and lower with independents will have a great chance of beating Obama–RIGHT?
LOL
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I sure hope the implication of this charisma talk isn’t that Romney has any. Romney isn’t winning this by selling himself and his ‘vision.’[/quote]
Soth I’ve complimented you on many occasions as being someone who knows what you like relative to the issues. You are involved early and stay informed.
With that said…
You are about as different as the American voter as you can get. The typical American voter will pay attention late in the game look at Obama, look at Romney get a gut feeling and vote. And while Romney only has a 50/50 chance at best he has a far better chance than Gingrich, or Santorum.
But you hate Romney so…you have no objectivity on the topic.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Razorslim,
If you did your research correctly you’ll see that there was a third party candidate who took almost 6 million votes. The candidates name was John Anderson and he was left of Jimmy Carter. Most of those votes would have gone to Carter. At the time we had the worst economy since the great depression. And for Carter to do as well as he did was shear testimony to his personal charisma and nothing more, as he did nothing else correctly. It was more of an electoral blow out than a popular vote blow out which Reagan did have in 1984 when he beat Walter rmondale by 18% points! Now that’s domination!
Yeah, I know nothing new with your assessment. You don’t like his policies therefore he has no charisma YAWN!!!
Those of us who are objective enough to separate our dislike for his policies with the actual man know differently. More importantly history has taught us that Obama’s charisma was well over the top vs John McCain. And that is really all that matters right?
LOL Newt’s negatives are up so high they need to wear an oxygen mask. Once again you LIKE Gingrich so you think he’s a really inspiring and interesting candidate, fair enough.
[quote]Romney is stiff and comes off as repeating rehearsed lines while Newt comes off as speaking from his heart and from core convictions. I bet Romney put in about 10x the debate prep as Newt or Santorum put in.
[/quote]
And you want Gingrich to beat Romney for the nomination so you are once again projecting.
As for the rest of your post about Romney working hard----REALLY? (eye roll)
“Um…the only reason that one fighter won was because he worked harder…um…otherwise he’d a lost fo sho…uh huh he would have”
Hey, find a primary and go vote for Newt Gingrich…(shrugs) but don’t try to peddle him here as having charisma just because you like him. Or, claim that Obama has no charisma because you don’t like him. You’re a poor judge of candidate flesh and very obviously biased.
The average American voter does not have that bias. They don’t come from any type of political preference like you or I.
You are not the typical American voter- You are much, must smarter and involved (and hey that’s a good thing). You are someone who actually votes on the issues most people don’t. The average American will come out of their non-political cocoon sometime after labor day take a look at both candidates make a gut choice on how he feels and that’s pretty much that. And keep in mind that about 50% of the people won’t even vote!
Sad, but true. Anyway you are unique–And good for you![/quote]
John Anderson was a Republican congressman who was running as a moderate choice between the polar opposites of Reagan and Carter so you need to do your own research and not rely on your faulty memory.
I never said Romney worked hard. I just said he has to prepare for debates more because what he is trying to express during the debates are not his core convictions, unlike Newt, Santorum, or Ron Paul
Newt has charisma, which makes you either love him or hate him. McCain is like zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. I did not like Clinton, but he had charisma. Obama does not come close to Clinton for the charisma.
Projecting - Yes I am biased. I did not realize YOU were setting the objective benchmarks that others are required to evaluate against. I guess you are that guy.
I also think primary voters are more intelligent on the issues than your average general election voter. We are talking primaries now aren’t we.
[quote]Razorslim wrote:
John Anderson was a Republican congressman who was running as a moderate choice between the polar opposites of Reagan and Carter so you need to do your own research and not rely on your faulty memory.[/quote]
Wow…you googled Anderson nice, but you should have kept reading. As memory serves, he ran as an independent. And when he was a republican he found himself at odds with the republican party on virtually every domestic and foreign affairs issue. Do you know why that is? DO YOU?
BECAUSE HE WAS L I B E R A L
Hence, when he ran AS AN INDEPENDENT in the 1980 Presidential race he took votes from Carter not Reagan. I guess my memory is better than your ten second google search.
Tell me what do you do when you spend more time preparing? Is that easy? Nooooo…It’s hard. Therefore, he worked harder to prepare for the debates. And by the way is showed. He was the only candidate with a logical beginning middle and end. And the polar opposite of his demonstration of presentation skills was Ron (I’m all over the road) Paul. If preperation causes you to sound better in a debate rather than speaking off the cuff then I say he’s a smart guy for working as hard as you allege that he has.
Ha ha political charisma is not a “love him or hate him” sort of thing. IN fact, political charisma causes you at times to like the person that you might vote against (and most don’t do that and that’s why charisma is so important). What Newt has is a certain boldness. That “in your face” style of politics does in fact attract people, especially the red meat voters in a primary. If it’s a right wing candidate such as Newt that would attract certain young males like yourself. And detract women, independents and senior citizens. And that’s exactly what the polls are showing.
I never said that Obama came close to Clinton in the charisma department, few politicians came close to Clinton in that area. What I said was Obama had charisma and certainly far more than McCain. And who won?
One way to determine objectivity is to reveal whom you would vote for if all other things were equal. And out of all the candidates I like Santorum the best, and I like Obama the least. Yet, I am willing to admit that Obama has charisma and Santorum is lacking. Does that make me the guy? No, but it does prove my objectivity.
Now who are you for again? Oh yeah…Gingrich. And who do you think has Charisma…oh yeah Gingrich. So that makes you the guy who cannot separate his personal attraction to one particular candidate from an honest assessment of who has charisma.
[quote]I also think primary voters are more intelligent on the issues than your average general election voter. We are talking primaries now aren’t we.
[/quote]
You finally said something I agree with. Try to keep that up.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Razorslim wrote:
John Anderson was a Republican congressman who was running as a moderate choice between the polar opposites of Reagan and Carter so you need to do your own research and not rely on your faulty memory.[/quote]
Wow…you googled Anderson nice, but you should have kept reading. As memory serves, he ran as an independent. And when he was a republican he found himself at odds with the republican party on virtually every domestic and foreign affairs issue. Do you know why that is? DO YOU?
BECAUSE HE WAS L I B E R A L
Hence, when he ran AS AN INDEPENDENT in the 1980 Presidential race he took votes from Carter not Reagan. I guess my memory is better than your ten second google search.
Tell me what do you do when you spend more time preparing? Is that easy? Nooooo…It’s hard. Therefore, he worked harder to prepare for the debates. And by the way is showed. He was the only candidate with a logical beginning middle and end. And the polar opposite of his demonstration of presentation skills was Ron (I’m all over the road) Paul. If preperation causes you to sound better in a debate rather than speaking off the cuff then I say he’s a smart guy for working as hard as you allege that he has.
Ha ha political charisma is not a “love him or hate him” sort of thing. IN fact, political charisma causes you at times to like the person that you might vote against (and most don’t do that and that’s why charisma is so important). What Newt has is a certain boldness. That “in your face” style of politics does in fact attract people, especially the red meat voters in a primary. If it’s a right wing candidate such as Newt that would attract certain young males like yourself. And detract women, independents and senior citizens. And that’s exactly what the polls are showing.
I never said that Obama came close to Clinton in the charisma department, few politicians came close to Clinton in that area. What I said was Obama had charisma and certainly far more than McCain. And who won?
One way to determine objectivity is to reveal whom you would vote for if all other things were equal. And out of all the candidates I like Santorum the best, and I like Obama the least. Yet, I am willing to admit that Obama has charisma and Santorum is lacking. Does that make me the guy? No, but it does prove my objectivity.
Now who are you for again? Oh yeah…Gingrich. And who do you think has Charisma…oh yeah Gingrich. So that makes you the guy who cannot separate his personal attraction to one particular candidate from an honest assessment of who has charisma.
[quote]I also think primary voters are more intelligent on the issues than your average general election voter. We are talking primaries now aren’t we.
[/quote]
You finally said something I agree with. Try to keep that up.[/quote]
We may agree more than you think
Page 4, 2nd post I said:
Right now, Rick Santorum is the candidate who is best suited for this. It is not over and den’t let the media decide the race for us.
Rick > Newt > Mitt > RonPaul > BHO
Why are we butting heads again?
What I write here are my own biased opinions based on my analysis of what I read and hear. I do not pretend to represent anyone else’s thoughts unlike you who portays themselves as the common man’s reasonable objective thinker. I would respect you more if you admit you were biased and were expressing your own opinion rather than epxend so much energy trying to prove your so called objectivity.
[quote]Razorslim wrote:
What I write here are my own biased opinions based on my analysis of what I read and hearI do not pretend to represent anyone else’s thoughts
you who portays themselves as the common man’s reasonable objective thinker.
I would respect you more if you admit you were biased and were expressing your own opinion rather than epxend so much energy trying to prove your so called objectivity.
[/quote]
I too have gathered my own opinion from what I’ve read and learned from many years of political analysis. Like others who have been studying this game for a while, sometimes I’m right sometimes I’m wrong. But I am very able to separate my likes from what I think the majority like, once again based on a healthy portion of objective analysis.
As for you respecting me, it’s always nice to have that too. But I won’t compromise my views, especially on a message board, to earn the respect of a stranger. Nor, will I dumb down the confidence in order to win friends.
I’ve clearly pointed out to you that you are looking at this election in a subjective manner and that’s what most do. You’ve not countered that argument and I think that’s mainly because I think you are smart enough to know that you are doing it. Nor is it important that you try to counter that argument.
We can let it go right here or not – I don’t care either way. I am confident in what I’ve posted and can back it up.
Oh I forgot one important thing, love your avatar! And I’m very confident about that.
http://blog.american.com/2012/01/study-romneycare-was-template-for-obamacare/
Good reading for Conservatives.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Razorslim wrote:
What I write here are my own biased opinions based on my analysis of what I read and hearI do not pretend to represent anyone else’s thoughts
you who portays themselves as the common man’s reasonable objective thinker.
I would respect you more if you admit you were biased and were expressing your own opinion rather than epxend so much energy trying to prove your so called objectivity.
[/quote]
I too have gathered my own opinion from what I’ve read and learned from many years of political analysis. Like others who have been studying this game for a while, sometimes I’m right sometimes I’m wrong. But I am very able to separate my likes from what I think the majority like, once again based on a healthy portion of objective analysis.
As for you respecting me, it’s always nice to have that too. But I won’t compromise my views, especially on a message board, to earn the respect of a stranger. Nor, will I dumb down the confidence in order to win friends.
I’ve clearly pointed out to you that you are looking at this election in a subjective manner and that’s what most do. You’ve not countered that argument and I think that’s mainly because I think you are smart enough to know that you are doing it. Nor is it important that you try to counter that argument.
We can let it go right here or not – I don’t care either way. I am confident in what I’ve posted and can back it up.
[/quote]
I guess we are in violent agreement though I cannot understand why you think you need to point out that I am being subjective when I freely admit to being subjective. Why do you insist that I argue against myself?
Romney appears to be trending up in FLA
[quote]pushharder wrote:
But again your take on charisma and personality is well taken. In the shallow TV age we must often defer to shallowness in order to advance our agenda…whatever it may be.[/quote]
That’s what I’m talkin bout brother!!!
[quote]Razorslim wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Razorslim wrote:
What I write here are my own biased opinions based on my analysis of what I read and hearI do not pretend to represent anyone else’s thoughts
you who portays themselves as the common man’s reasonable objective thinker.
I would respect you more if you admit you were biased and were expressing your own opinion rather than epxend so much energy trying to prove your so called objectivity.
[/quote]
I too have gathered my own opinion from what I’ve read and learned from many years of political analysis. Like others who have been studying this game for a while, sometimes I’m right sometimes I’m wrong. But I am very able to separate my likes from what I think the majority like, once again based on a healthy portion of objective analysis.
As for you respecting me, it’s always nice to have that too. But I won’t compromise my views, especially on a message board, to earn the respect of a stranger. Nor, will I dumb down the confidence in order to win friends.
I’ve clearly pointed out to you that you are looking at this election in a subjective manner and that’s what most do. You’ve not countered that argument and I think that’s mainly because I think you are smart enough to know that you are doing it. Nor is it important that you try to counter that argument.
We can let it go right here or not – I don’t care either way. I am confident in what I’ve posted and can back it up.
[/quote]
I guess we are in violent agreement[/quote]
Maybe it’s not worth it but I cannot help but remind you of what you approached me with in your very first post. A more unkind way to say it would be, “you started it”
-
You attempted to tell me that John Anderson did not take votes from Jimmy Carter when in fact history shows that he did.
-
You stated that Obama did not have charisma and you said “to me he is an empty suit” or words to that effect. I then pointed out that he has plenty of charisma and defeated McCain who had zero charisma.
-
You then said something on the order of Gingrich being inspiring and that Romney comes off as repeating rehearsed lines. You then accused him of working too hard. I then stated that working hard is a good thing as proven by Romney’s presentation skills (not impressive to you but to most they are). And I compared them to Ron Paul who rambles.
-
I then charged you with not being able to be objective enough and that I was. The example that I gave was that while I like Santorum he does not have charisma (or not enough). And that while I did not like Obama I feel that he does have charisma.
And somewhere along the line I stated that Gingrich had high negative poll ratings with three classes of people, senior citizens, women and independents. The very three areas where Romney (on most polls) scores well. And in fact the very three areas where a republican needs to show strength if he is to win the Presidency.
If you now agree with me on the three points above that might be a first in the history of the Internet. Someone’s mind has actually been changed by repeated posting.
If you do not agree with me it’s time to either give me specifics as to why you feel you are correct on the points above.
Then again you could forget the whole thing and not post back that happens around here on occasion.
As I said earlier, I don’t care either way my night is open.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Razorslim wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Razorslim wrote:
What I write here are my own biased opinions based on my analysis of what I read and hearI do not pretend to represent anyone else’s thoughts
you who portays themselves as the common man’s reasonable objective thinker.
I would respect you more if you admit you were biased and were expressing your own opinion rather than epxend so much energy trying to prove your so called objectivity.
[/quote]
I too have gathered my own opinion from what I’ve read and learned from many years of political analysis. Like others who have been studying this game for a while, sometimes I’m right sometimes I’m wrong. But I am very able to separate my likes from what I think the majority like, once again based on a healthy portion of objective analysis.
As for you respecting me, it’s always nice to have that too. But I won’t compromise my views, especially on a message board, to earn the respect of a stranger. Nor, will I dumb down the confidence in order to win friends.
I’ve clearly pointed out to you that you are looking at this election in a subjective manner and that’s what most do. You’ve not countered that argument and I think that’s mainly because I think you are smart enough to know that you are doing it. Nor is it important that you try to counter that argument.
We can let it go right here or not – I don’t care either way. I am confident in what I’ve posted and can back it up.
[/quote]
I guess we are in violent agreement[/quote]
Maybe it’s not worth it but I cannot help but remind you of what you approached me with in your very first post. A more unkind way to say it would be, “you started it”
-
You attempted to tell me that John Anderson did not take votes from Jimmy Carter when in fact history shows that he did.
-
You stated that Obama did not have charisma and you said “to me he is an empty suit” or words to that effect. I then pointed out that he has plenty of charisma and defeated McCain who had zero charisma.
-
You then said something on the order of Gingrich being inspiring and that Romney comes off as repeating rehearsed lines. You then accused him of working too hard. I then stated that working hard is a good thing as proven by Romney’s presentation skills (not impressive to you but to most they are). And I compared them to Ron Paul who rambles.
-
I then charged you with not being able to be objective enough and that I was. The example that I gave was that while I like Santorum he does not have charisma (or not enough). And that while I did not like Obama I feel that he does have charisma.
And somewhere along the line I stated that Gingrich had high negative poll ratings with three classes of people, senior citizens, women and independents. The very three areas where Romney (on most polls) scores well. And in fact the very three areas where a republican needs to show strength if he is to win the Presidency.
If you now agree with me on the three points above that might be a first in the history of the Internet. Someone’s mind has actually been changed by repeated posting.
If you do not agree with me it’s time to either give me specifics as to why you feel you are correct on the points above.
Then again you could forget the whole thing and not post back that happens around here on occasion.
As I said earlier, I don’t care either way my night is open.
[/quote]
You seem to lack the ability to distinguish facts from opinion. Once again I freely admit what I said were my opinions, not facts, which in some cases are different from yours. Those points above are your opinions, my friend, which are not the same as objective facts. Disagree as you will, but you seem to be so narcissistic as to be unable to distinguish your own personal opinions from universal truths.
[quote]Razorslim wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Razorslim wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Razorslim wrote:
What I write here are my own biased opinions based on my analysis of what I read and hearI do not pretend to represent anyone else’s thoughts
you who portays themselves as the common man’s reasonable objective thinker.
I would respect you more if you admit you were biased and were expressing your own opinion rather than epxend so much energy trying to prove your so called objectivity.
[/quote]
I too have gathered my own opinion from what I’ve read and learned from many years of political analysis. Like others who have been studying this game for a while, sometimes I’m right sometimes I’m wrong. But I am very able to separate my likes from what I think the majority like, once again based on a healthy portion of objective analysis.
As for you respecting me, it’s always nice to have that too. But I won’t compromise my views, especially on a message board, to earn the respect of a stranger. Nor, will I dumb down the confidence in order to win friends.
I’ve clearly pointed out to you that you are looking at this election in a subjective manner and that’s what most do. You’ve not countered that argument and I think that’s mainly because I think you are smart enough to know that you are doing it. Nor is it important that you try to counter that argument.
We can let it go right here or not – I don’t care either way. I am confident in what I’ve posted and can back it up.
[/quote]
I guess we are in violent agreement[/quote]
Maybe it’s not worth it but I cannot help but remind you of what you approached me with in your very first post. A more unkind way to say it would be, “you started it”
-
You attempted to tell me that John Anderson did not take votes from Jimmy Carter when in fact history shows that he did.
-
You stated that Obama did not have charisma and you said “to me he is an empty suit” or words to that effect. I then pointed out that he has plenty of charisma and defeated McCain who had zero charisma.
-
You then said something on the order of Gingrich being inspiring and that Romney comes off as repeating rehearsed lines. You then accused him of working too hard. I then stated that working hard is a good thing as proven by Romney’s presentation skills (not impressive to you but to most they are). And I compared them to Ron Paul who rambles.
-
I then charged you with not being able to be objective enough and that I was. The example that I gave was that while I like Santorum he does not have charisma (or not enough). And that while I did not like Obama I feel that he does have charisma.
And somewhere along the line I stated that Gingrich had high negative poll ratings with three classes of people, senior citizens, women and independents. The very three areas where Romney (on most polls) scores well. And in fact the very three areas where a republican needs to show strength if he is to win the Presidency.
If you now agree with me on the three points above that might be a first in the history of the Internet. Someone’s mind has actually been changed by repeated posting.
If you do not agree with me it’s time to either give me specifics as to why you feel you are correct on the points above.
Then again you could forget the whole thing and not post back that happens around here on occasion.
As I said earlier, I don’t care either way my night is open.
[/quote]
You seem to lack the ability to distinguish facts from opinion. Once again I freely admit what I said were my opinions, not facts, which in some cases are different from yours. Those points above are your opinions, my friend, which are not the same as objective facts. Disagree as you will, but you seem to be so narcissistic as to be unable to distinguish your own personal opinions from universal truths.
[/quote]
Narcissistic? Because I tried to point out a few things to you? Oh my…
You seem a tad inexperienced in these matters. Perhaps that has led you to somehow confuse opinion with fact. Then again it could just be an Internet thing. Does anyone ever admit they’re wrong on the Internet? Well…certainly not you!
Here you go:
Fact: Romney scores higher than Gingrich in the polls with the three groups that I pointed out.
Fact: The republicans cannot win without winning the independents.
Fact: John Anderson WAS a liberal on all important issues and drew votes from Carter not Reagan.
Fact: You accused Romney of “working too hard” and I pointed out how that hard work (if that is the case) paid off in the debate. Would he be crushing your boy Newt right now if he didn’t do well in the debate? Look what happened when Newt beat him in a debate in SC.
Fact: While it’s difficult to measure these things if you don’t think that Obama had more charisma than McCain most around here would think you have a serious judgment problem. Instead of just an insecurity about admitting that you’re wrong…which as I said is quite common during an Internet debate.
One more time, do you really want to do this?
One thing I think we can all agree on:
There is often a “disconnect” between the way we WISH things were…and the way they really are.
I think that this is as true of politics as it is with those we Love. I see BOTH on this thread.
Ultimately we’ll see how things turn out come November.
Mufasa
Back to Newt!
Interesting thing I saw this morning on one of the Political shows.
Newt was insisting on a debate format for the second Florida debate that allowed more crowd interaction and response. As we know; Newt knows how to work a crowd. And when he has debated in this type of format, his numbers soared. (Jaun Williams/John King).
It sort of back-fired this time, because Romney came out swinging; Newt was caught off guard; and Romney’s numbers improved.
Will this translate into a “win” for Romney in Florida?
Never, EVER count Newt out.
Mufasa
I awoke this morning turned on the television and started watching all the liberal networks like MSNBC, NBC, CNN and the others knocking Romney. And yesterday it was the Obama surrogates out knocking Romney. I ask once again who do you suppose they are more scared of running against? I think the answer to that question is rather obvious.
They’d love Newt (the angry) Gingrich to step up and get the nomination. They were no doubt dancing in the halls of the White House when he won South Carolina. Now that Gingrich is trailing badly in Florida they have stepped up their attack on Romney.
But hey what do they know right? I’m sure the average backer of Newt Gingrich right here on T Nation knows a lot more about who can defeat Obama than the White House, the DNC and the major liberal TV networks. No?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Razorslim wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Razorslim wrote:
What I write here are my own biased opinions based on my analysis of what I read and hearI do not pretend to represent anyone else’s thoughts
you who portays themselves as the common man’s reasonable objective thinker.
I would respect you more if you admit you were biased and were expressing your own opinion rather than epxend so much energy trying to prove your so called objectivity.
[/quote]
I too have gathered my own opinion from what I’ve read and learned from many years of political analysis. Like others who have been studying this game for a while, sometimes I’m right sometimes I’m wrong. But I am very able to separate my likes from what I think the majority like, once again based on a healthy portion of objective analysis.
As for you respecting me, it’s always nice to have that too. But I won’t compromise my views, especially on a message board, to earn the respect of a stranger. Nor, will I dumb down the confidence in order to win friends.
I’ve clearly pointed out to you that you are looking at this election in a subjective manner and that’s what most do. You’ve not countered that argument and I think that’s mainly because I think you are smart enough to know that you are doing it. Nor is it important that you try to counter that argument.
We can let it go right here or not – I don’t care either way. I am confident in what I’ve posted and can back it up.
[/quote]
I guess we are in violent agreement[/quote]
Maybe it’s not worth it but I cannot help but remind you of what you approached me with in your very first post. A more unkind way to say it would be, “you started it”
-
You attempted to tell me that John Anderson did not take votes from Jimmy Carter when in fact history shows that he did.
-
You stated that Obama did not have charisma and you said “to me he is an empty suit” or words to that effect. I then pointed out that he has plenty of charisma and defeated McCain who had zero charisma.
-
You then said something on the order of Gingrich being inspiring and that Romney comes off as repeating rehearsed lines. You then accused him of working too hard. I then stated that working hard is a good thing as proven by Romney’s presentation skills (not impressive to you but to most they are). And I compared them to Ron Paul who rambles.
-
I then charged you with not being able to be objective enough and that I was. The example that I gave was that while I like Santorum he does not have charisma (or not enough). And that while I did not like Obama I feel that he does have charisma.
And somewhere along the line I stated that Gingrich had high negative poll ratings with three classes of people, senior citizens, women and independents. The very three areas where Romney (on most polls) scores well. And in fact the very three areas where a republican needs to show strength if he is to win the Presidency.
If you now agree with me on the three points above that might be a first in the history of the Internet. Someone’s mind has actually been changed by repeated posting.
If you do not agree with me it’s time to either give me specifics as to why you feel you are correct on the points above.
Then again you could forget the whole thing and not post back that happens around here on occasion.
As I said earlier, I don’t care either way my night is open.
[/quote]
- Reagan received 489 electoral votes (44 states) to Carter’s 48 electoral voted (7 states)
If Carter had received 100% of Anderson’s votes, Reagan would still have won with 331 electoral votes (30 states) to Carter’s 207 electoral votes (21 states)
If Carter had received 67% of Anderson’s votes, and Reagan 33%, Reagan would still have won with 452 electoral votes (39 states) to Carter’s 86 electoral votes (12 states)
If Carter had received 50% of Anderson’s votes, and Reagan 50%, Reagan would still have won with 489 electoral votes (44 states) to Carter’s 48 electoral votes (7 states), same as the actual election
Seems like a runaway election no matter how the Anderson vote would have distributed had he not run. Feel free to check my math