There will certainly be a lot in this Presidential Election that will go “by-the-script”, with no real surprises from either side. Except for the “Hillary-as-VP” stuff (VERY unlikely); and Romney’s Choice for VP…things are going to turn ugly; but hardly surprising.
One often repeated “Political Pearl” is that “Independents Decide Elections”.
Not this time. Many feel that this election will be decided (and in Romney’s favor) by two things:
A fired up Conservative Base that is MUCH more energized than the President’s base and
Far from being “independent” (in the way many tend to think of Independents), the TeaPublicans.
While being more “Stealth-Like” in their Public tone; they have already proven to be key in the Mid-Terms; some key Congressional and State Elections SINCE the Mid-Terms; and will be VERY key in the Presidential Election.
They have been more than happy to turn in their Colonial Dress, Muskets and “Hate-Obama” posters; let the “Occupy” Folks take the spotlight; and influence elections where they count; behind the scenes and at the Ballot Box.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
There will certainly be a lot in this Presidential Election that will go “by-the-script”, with no real surprises from either side. Except for the “Hillary-as-VP” stuff (VERY unlikely); and Romney’s Choice for VP…things are going to turn ugly; but hardly surprising.
One often repeated “Political Pearl” is that “Independents Decide Elections”.
Not this time. Many feel that this election will be decided (and in Romney’s favor) by two things:
A fired up Conservative Base that is MUCH more energized than the President’s base and
Far from being “independent” (in the way many tend to think of Independents), the TeaPublicans.
While being more “Stealth-Like” in their Public tone; they have already proven to be key in the Mid-Terms; some key Congressional and State Elections SINCE the Mid-Terms; and will be VERY key in the Presidential Election.
They have been more than happy to turn in their Colonial Dress, Muskets and “Hate-Obama” posters; let the “Occupy” Folks take the spotlight; and influence elections where they count; behind the scenes and at the Ballot Box.
Thoughts?
Mufasa[/quote]
The Tea Party folks are only “stealth like” because the main stream liberal media pretends that they don’t exist. They feel that if they ignore them they’ll be able to hurt their stature as a movement. And when magazines like Time make the Occupy movement their “man of theyear” they try to raise their stature.This lack of coverage has neither slowed them down or prevented them from growing. And you are quite right they are influencing elections all over the country. And they will be out supporting Romney in a very big way! But don’t wait to hear anything about that from Chris Matthews and the rest of the one sided Obama ass suckers.
I personally agree with Zeb , the mainstream media is all about selling their time . they think no one would watch their programing if they told the news the way it was and they may be right. I know NPR is not immuned to that pressure but they are a good news organization. That may be an example of why free enterprise is not always the best vehicle.
(Zeb, Zeb, Zeb…just GOTTA’ get the “MSLM” in there, don’t 'cha?)
I think that it is a strategy (I hope some TeaPublicans chime in) to not take a Public Stand. “FOX” has not even been saying much about them.
Mufasa[/quote]
Yeah…I just gotta keep telling the truth. A recent survey was taken by one particular organization that watches for fairness in the media (I’ll try to find it again if you want to see it my friend). It said that at this time during the Bush/Kerry Presidential election of 2004 the MSLM mentioned Kerry’s wealth something like 3 times. And so far this year the MSLM has mentioned Romney’s wealth 25 times! And they both happen to be worth in the neighborhood of 200 to 250 million dollars. The only difference, Romney is a republican.
Those who fail to see the bias fail to see the truth.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
He does not like liberals at all, almost seems like some kind of bigotry against them.[/quote]
Stop trying to make up for your anti religious crusade on other threads. You are a religious bigot and the sooner you see it the sooner you can at least try to make a change.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
He does not like liberals at all, almost seems like some kind of bigotry against them.[/quote]
Stop trying to make up for your anti religious crusade on other threads. You are a religious bigot and the sooner you see it the sooner you can at least try to make a change.[/quote]
Okay but can you try to change the liberal bigotry on your side?
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
He does not like liberals at all, almost seems like some kind of bigotry against them.[/quote]
Stop trying to make up for your anti religious crusade on other threads. You are a religious bigot and the sooner you see it the sooner you can at least try to make a change.[/quote]
Okay but can you try to change the liberal bigotry on your side?[/quote]
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I personally agree with Zeb , the mainstream media is all about selling their time . they think no one would watch their programing if they told the news the way it was and they may be right. I know NPR is not immuned to that pressure but they are a good news organization. That may be an example of why free enterprise is not always the best vehicle. [/quote]
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I personally agree with Zeb , the mainstream media is all about selling their time . they think no one would watch their programing if they told the news the way it was and they may be right. I know NPR is not immuned to that pressure but they are a good news organization. That may be an example of why free enterprise is not always the best vehicle. [/quote]
NPR, not biased? Of course, like the KKK.[/quote]
I chuckled at that too, but since it was Pittbull I was going to leave it alone. Out of all the nutty things that he thinks this one is rather mild.
The Tea Party Republicans (“TP”) won’t be as vocal or contrarian, and are going to rally around Romney. Part of this is their natural understanding that the stakes are too high to demand purity, and part of this is their comeuppance/humble pie after thinking that their election in 2010 somehow gave them the power to run the table with TP ideas, and they got humiliated when their naivete was exposed.
The TP has had to learn the hard way that there is a difference in coffeehouse politics and real-world politics. Credit them for learning, though, and they are still impacting elections.
Romney doesn’t have to motivate the base to come out and vote - Obama will (and is). Just look at what Obama has done in the past two months. Romney’s best ally in getting out the base to vote isn’t a Republican at all.
There is no Occupy. And the Democrats can thank their lucky stars there isn’t any more. Occupy [fill in the blank] won’t have any effect on this election. It’s a dead movement - until it morphs into the next left-wing protest outfit.
Obama should probably dump Biden, but I don’t know know for who.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I personally agree with Zeb , the mainstream media is all about selling their time . they think no one would watch their programing if they told the news the way it was and they may be right. I know NPR is not immuned to that pressure but they are a good news organization. That may be an example of why free enterprise is not always the best vehicle. [/quote]
NPR, not biased? Of course, like the KKK.[/quote]
They are biased I agree but at least they are not beholding to sponsors
Obama should probably dump Biden, but I don’t know know for who.
[/quote]
As I’ve been predicting it will be Hillary. That will be the next big thing for Obama.
Why wouldn’t want to be set up for a Presidential run in 2016? Not that she isn’t now with her current credentials but as VP it will put her as the logical contender should Obama be victorious this year.
And they save face by moving Biden to the Secretary of State position which is supposed to be his strong suit anyway.
As I’ve been predicting it will be Hillary. That will be the next big thing for Obama.
Why wouldn’t want to be set up for a Presidential run in 2016? Not that she isn’t now with her current credentials but as VP it will put her as the logical contender should Obama be victorious this year.
And they save face by moving Biden to the Secretary of State position which is supposed to be his strong suit anyway.
If you were Obama isn’t that what you’d do?[/quote]
Sure, I’d probably ask Hillary if I was Obama, but I am not sure Hillary would agree to it. I think Hillary - to her credit, and her husband’s - recognizes that there is serious risk in being part of the Obama “brand” in 2012 if you are interested in 2016. Democrats are going to sober up, and I think Hillary wants to be in that camp.
I also don’t think Hillary wants to be associated with this idiotic war-on-women “pandermonium” the Obama campaign is attempting.
Those that I know (albeit a VERY small sampling!) seem to be saying that they like the President; he came in facing some heavy odds; made mistakes (like all President’s do); but, but, BUT…we have to try something else to get things moving. The result is that they are leaning heavily toward Romney. (Again…this is my own small, personal sampling. I would love to hear what National polls are saying).
Agree with Bolt on this…the Conservative base needs no motivation. I think that they are fired up and ready to go…and my feeling is that will vote in record numbers.
My feeling on Occupy are the same as Bolt…dead. I think that their problem was not the message…but the most visible messengers. There were actually some very insightful people “behind-the-scenes”…but all Anarchist, Socialist, Communist, burned-out Hippies, etc., that became the “face” of the movement essentially killed it.
Does Hillary want to be part of what is predicted to be continuing economic stagnation (Romney or not); an aging (and EXTREMLY expensive) population; a Middle East that is as unpredictable and volatile as it has been in years; an unstable Eurozone, etc. (the list goes on and on).
Obama came in with what were going to be multi-Term problems; and those are predicted to exist independent of who is in office.
Hillary “waiting it out” until 2016 would seem to be in her best interest.
Polls have been showing independents leaving Obama steadily since even 2008.
Personally? I think independents are furious and motivated. They honestly believed they were getting a smart, “no red state/no blue state” pragmatic problem-solver, and they got the opposite. They want a re-do. They are mad at the ideological trench warfare, and they will do something about it (which isn’t necssarily a good sign for the GOP either, but I think it hurts the Democrats more).
