US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012

Status
Not open for further replies.
Red Dreams said:
The Republican Party in Minnesota is fecked. :) Looking forward to teh DFL blow them out of the water in November.

http://www.twincities.com/ci_210706...d-accused-illegal-contributions-circumventing

http://www.crookstontimes.com/news/...e-aide-Brodkorb-sues-over-firing-after-affair

Scandal and illegal activity. The MN GOP is bankrupt. :smirk:
Click to expand...

Not to mention Minnesota's super pyscho bitch congresswoman, Michelle Bachman and her little psycho band of republikan brothers going whacko on her Christian jihad against the Muslim brotherhood supposedly infiltrating the Obama administration. Even other Republicans are telling her to shut the feck up. What an embarrassment this person was once a Republikan front runner.
 
Nobby style said:
Not to mention Minnesota's super pyscho bitch congresswoman, Michelle Bachman and her little psycho band of republikan brothers going whacko on her Christian jihad against the Muslim brotherhood supposedly infiltrating the Obama administration. Even other Republicans are telling her to shut the feck up. What an embarrassment this person was once a Republikan front runner.
Click to expand...

the crazy bitch may actually lose this time round....hopefully.

Once we get both the house and senate in Minnesota and with a democratic governor, we may actually get some sensible laws through instead of marriage amendment bollocks.
 
mjs020294 said:
Its not a case of being "hung up" on anything, it was the finding of a poll/survey on NPR. In the last three weeks the gap has narrowed from 4% to 1%, and its trending downwards.

The voter enthusiasm could be extremely important because Obama had a lot of first time votes. His approval rating is even poor amongst his own voter base. He can have a great round of debates but will that be enough to overcome his record.
Click to expand...

You are putting too much stock in that, only numbers should ever worry about are the swing state poll averages. Besides when the debates start Obama should own Romney and hopefully do enough to swing the idiot voter.
 
Ramshock said:
You are putting too much stock in that, only numbers should ever worry about are the swing state poll averages. Besides when the debates start Obama should own Romney and hopefully do enough to swing the idiot voter.
Click to expand...

Well considering only 20% of the population watch the debates its hardly going to be decisive. Especially when most people that watch are politically motivated in the first place.

The biggest potential for shock in this election is the apathy of the democratic vote.
 
mjs020294 said:
Well considering only 20% of the population watch the debates its hardly going to be decisive. Especially when most people that watch are politically motivated in the first place.

The biggest potential for shock in this election is the apathy of the democratic vote.
Click to expand...

Well, half of us don't vote [and some of the population are minors], so out of the other half, 2/5ths watch the debates, a decent figure. I believe the swing vote is considered to be that size or smaller, those are the sort most likely to watch I'd think.
 
gooDevil said:
Well, half of us don't vote [and some of the population are minors], so out of the other half, 2/5ths watch the debates, a decent figure. I believe the swing vote is considered to be that size or smaller, those are the sort most likely to watch I'd think.
Click to expand...

So no kids or non-voters get sucked into the viewing numbers....:lol:
 
You don't need to watch the debates to be influenced by them. It all creates momentum and a general image around the candidates, if Obama clearly comes out on top that's sure to become a narrative.
 
Goods news, Brits! Mitt Romney "feels that the special relationship is special", according to what I can only hope is his dumbest adviser, speaking to Jon Swaine of the Telegraph. This adviser said that "we are part of an Anglo-Saxon heritage", then proceeded to ensure we'll be reading about his retroactive resignation shortly by adding that "the White House doesn't fully appreciate the shared history we have."

It's Romney's own fault for offshoring those adviser jobs in his campaign to Uruguay.

The advisers could not give detailed examples of how policy towards Britain would differ under Mr Romney. One conceded that on the European crisis: “I’m not sure what our policy response is.”
Click to expand...
 
Excal said:
Goods news, Brits! Mitt Romney "feels that the special relationship is special", according to what I can only hope is his dumbest adviser, speaking to Jon Swaine of the Telegraph. This adviser said that "we are part of an Anglo-Saxon heritage", then proceeded to ensure we'll be reading about his retroactive resignation shortly by adding that "the White House doesn't fully appreciate the shared history we have."

It's Romney's own fault for offshoring those adviser jobs in his campaign to Uruguay.
Click to expand...

The Big Black Man is coming to get you always works with a large minority of folks. Its sad that people dont know/recognise they are racist and yet want to claim they are church going, god fearing people.
They don't like his healthcare plan, economic plans etc but cant be specific what they dont like... they just dont like a black man leading the country.
 
New NBC/WSJ poll has Obama leading Romney 49% to 43% overall, 49% to 41% in battleground states and +6% to -5% in favourability rating.

What's hilarious is that Romney leads 43% to 37% on dealing with the economy, but when their economic plans are asked about without naming the candidate, 80% approve Obama's and 68% on Romney's.
 
mjs020294 said:
Well considering only 20% of the population watch the debates its hardly going to be decisive. Especially when most people that watch are politically motivated in the first place.

The biggest potential for shock in this election is the apathy of the democratic vote.
Click to expand...

Really? 20% watch the debates which are covered by every major network? so people are going to bother voting yet dont want to hear what the two men they will choose from want to say? I dont know where you get your numbers from but that seems like a huge discrepancy between debate watchers and voter turn out. Doing a quick calculation in my head thinking about the last election I am pretty sure more than 50% of friends, relatives and colleagues I talked to back in 2008 watched the presidential debates.
 
Feeky_Magee said:
New NBC/WSJ poll has Obama leading Romney 49% to 43% overall, 49% to 41% in battleground states and +6% to -5% in favourability rating.

What's hilarious is that Romney leads 43% to 37% on dealing with the economy, but when their economic plans are asked about without naming the candidate, 80% approve Obama's and 68% on Romney's.
Click to expand...

Therein likes the problem with a large proportion of the American public, ill informed and politically docile just the way the right like them.
 
Ramshock said:
Really? 20% watch the debates which are covered by every major network? so people are going to bother voting yet dont want to hear what the two men they will choose from want to say? I dont know where you get your numbers from but that seems like a huge discrepancy between debate watchers and voter turn out. Doing a quick calculation in my head thinking about the last election I am pretty sure more than 50% of friends, relatives and colleagues I talked to back in 2008 watched the presidential debates.
Click to expand...

Viewer rating ;)
 
Biden Hits Romney Campaign Over Anonymous Comments In UK Paper

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...egraph-adviser-joe-biden.php?ref=fpa&tw_p=twt

Surprised Willard did not promise to put up a statue of Churchill in front of the white house if he got elected.



“We are part of an Anglo-Saxon heritage, and he feels that the special relationship is special,” the unnamed adviser told the paper. “The White House didn’t fully appreciate the shared history we have.”

translation...'us white people apprecite our shared history'
 
I'm jut putting this in here as another example of the Romney gaffe machine. His charm must be lethal at dinner parties. :smirk:

The US presidential candidate Mitt Romney has questioned the readiness of London 2012, saying there have been "disconcerting signs" in the buildup to the Games – but said the focus would soon switch to celebrating the athletes.

Before meetings with David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband on Thursday, he told US television: "It is hard to know just how well it will turn out."

Romney told NBC News: "There are a few things that were disconcerting. The stories about the private security firm not having enough people, the supposed strike of the immigration and customs officials – that obviously is not something which is encouraging."

In the interview he also called into question whether the British people were behind the Games.

"Do they come together and celebrate the Olympic moment? And that's something which we only find out once the Games actually begin," he said.
Click to expand...
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
I'm jut putting this in here as another example of the Romney gaffe machine. His charm must be lethal at dinner parties. :smirk:
Click to expand...
The US presidential candidate Mitt Romney has questioned the readiness of London 2012, saying there have been "disconcerting signs" in the buildup to the Games – but said the focus would soon switch to celebrating the athletes.

Before meetings with David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband on Thursday, he told US television: "It is hard to know just how well it will turn out."

Romney told NBC News: "There are a few things that were disconcerting. The stories about the private security firm not having enough people, the supposed strike of the immigration and customs officials – that obviously is not something which is encouraging."

In the interview he also called into question whether the British people were behind the Games.

"Do they come together and celebrate the Olympic moment? And that's something which we only find out once the Games actually begin," he said
Click to expand...
.



http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mitt-romney-expensive-olympics-federal-funding

This is just so typical and symbolic of Republicans' state of mind. Bitch and bitch about public funds, meanwhile raiding them in their crony "capitalism." The sort of "privatize profits, socialize losses" frame of mind so prevalent in the economic meltdown.

Mitt Romney's Super-Expensive, Federally-Funded Olympics

As Romney chastises the president for pointing out that successful business ventures benefit from a larger social compact and accuses critics of pining for "free stuff," Romney is simultaneously touting an Olympic effort that, more than any other in American history, succeeded thanks to public investment—some of it sunk into questionable projects of marginal value to the Salt Lake games. "The $1.5 billion in taxpayer dollars that Congress is pouring into Utah is 1.5 times the amount spent by lawmakers to support all seven Olympic Games held in the U.S. since 1904—combined," Donald Barlett and James Steele reported for Sports Illustrated in 2001. Those numbers were adjusted for inflation.

How the Salt Lake Games came to receive more money than any games in American history isn't much of a mystery. The organizers, including Romney, asked for it. In his 2004 book, Turnaround, Romney acknowledges the central role of the federal government in making the Olympics possible. "No matter how well we did cutting costs and raising revenue, we couldn't have Games without the support of the federal government," he wrote . . .

. . . In 2000, with the opening ceremonies still more than a year away, Arizona Sen. John McCain called the Salt Lake price tag "a disgrace," and partnered with Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) to demand a Government Accountability Office investigation into how the games could cost so much . . .

. . . The most damning aspect of the Salt Lake tab wasn't the final amount, but how it was being spent. In their exhaustively researched Sports Illustrated accounting, Barlett and Steel explain how many Olympics projects amounted as little more than slush funds for wealthy donors. Wealthy Utahns used the games as an excuse to receive exemptions for projects that would otherwise never meet environmental standards, or to receive generous subsidies for improvements of questionable value to the games—but with serious value to future real estate developments. In one example, a wealthy developer received $3 million to build a three-mile stretch of road through his resort. Where'd he get the money? Federal funds that had been deposited in the Utah Permanent Community Impact Fund . . .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.