If that happens, the teabaggers will double down on the crazy, insisting that Romney didn't win because he was a moderate, never mind that he has set a rightward course throughout the entire election cycle.
US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
- Status
The teabaggers never wanted Romney anyway. Romney just carpetbombed the other candidates to get the nomination.
btw. Rasmussen has Obama at 49 over 45 for Romney. And Obama Job Approval at 52 over 47.
Think it is a combination of a poor convention by the RNC which really just lied about Obama and said nothing about what they will do and the DNC having a very good convention with the President giving a somber speech talking 'straight' to people about the future.
I don't see how Romney is going to reverse this.
btw. Rasmussen has Obama at 49 over 45 for Romney. And Obama Job Approval at 52 over 47.
Think it is a combination of a poor convention by the RNC which really just lied about Obama and said nothing about what they will do and the DNC having a very good convention with the President giving a somber speech talking 'straight' to people about the future.
I don't see how Romney is going to reverse this.
Romney was the best candidate out of the GOP field. He's not a bad candidate at all, he lacks charisma, but his record is not bad at all.
Again with the approval/convention bounces, Obama has got a bigger bounce, but it does not mean that it will stay that way.
That's quite a bump considering Rasumussen's traditional GOP leaning numbers. I would imagine Obama is now 3-5 points up in the national polls and up ahead all of the swings excepting possibly NC.
my point was he was never seen as a genuine conservative. And really he is not. If you do not truly reflect the views of your constituents, you will be seen to be a fake. The problem the GOP currently has is the activists are too far to the right. The moderates need to take back their party, or else they will soon become a regional party.
my view is a lot of people watched Clinton and the President....and the take home was...'right they are not just blaming the other guy'. They talked to the 'grown ups'. There is still a lot of work to do...and we can do this if we keep at it.
People are not dumb...they get stuff.
I agree that the party is too far too the right. Need a charismatic competent nominee, someone who can win the argument and take them back to the centre. I don't think Romney will be a bad president, mainly because he's not idealogical, but more practical. You have to remember that he's a Republican from Massachusetts and won, where even the democrats are considered very liberal.
The biggest problem for the GOP is by 2016, most people will be tired of the democrats, so there will likely be no need to move to the centre. So inevitably, the party will never reform unless they lose 2016.
Given the United States chose Obama over Clinton. Voted for Bush twice. I would say people are definitely dumb.
Why would voting Obama over Clinton be considered dumb ?
I think Romney will be a horrible president considering the company he surrounds himself with and the fact that he is a real life gordon gekko.
Where the party moves depends not on a candidate but where politically the people who show up at political events are. If the moderates show up, they will nominate a moderate.
Romney will do whatever keeps him in power. He is not an ideologue. That is why he is dangerous. The neo-cons around him will get him into the next war ASAP. As for the economy, he will not protect the poor nor the middle class. He will give in to 1 percenters to whom he belongs to.
I disagree that people will get tired of the democrats in 4 years. There are simply more democrats registering to vote each year. the demographics are changing rapidly in their favour. What have the republicans to offer?
I agree with your final statement..in fact I hope that is true. That when the GOP loses again in 2016, they will move to the center. Because as it stands, the GOP will not win the presidency in the foreseeable future.
If the economy does improve by 2016, which it almost certainly will, the Democrats have a realistic chance of winning another term. They just need to nominate someone competent and likable.
By 2020 the demographics will be working very much against the current GOP mandate so they have some sole searching to do. To many of them God/Church and abortion are in their top five (top three for many) polices that impacts their voting, which is crazy in this day and age.
By 2020 the demographics will be working very much against the current GOP mandate so they have some sole searching to do. To many of them God/Church and abortion are in their top five (top three for many) polices that impacts their voting, which is crazy in this day and age.
That's the innate problem with traditionalist conservatism in America. It's by definition averse to the type of socio-cultural changes the country has been going through over the past decade or two, and will continue to go through for years to come. Paradoxically, the Republicans would have to give ground on some if their core social issues (Abortion, Gay Marriage, Illegal Immigration etc) if they want to have a chance at winning the White House. That's not likely to happen, and with millions of younger voters and newly naturalized immigrants entering the voting pool every four years, it's going to be that much harder for the GOP to get anyone into the White House.
Eventually the socially right-wing Republicans will realise they've lost the argument on abortion, gay rights and the rest of it.
See this would be an issue in a parliamentary system, but I don't think there is a case for Democrat or Republican fatigue.
Presidential elections are almost a referendum on individual likability more than policies these days. Whereas the House/Senate elections so often hinge on localized issues...I don't believe there is a case for, 'we're tired of Labor, give the Tories a go' or vice versa happening in the US.
Not to mention, even if Obama does get a 2nd term, it looks like he'll be fighting a republican controlled congress most of the way.
I think you can be fairly sure of that.
Doesn't say a lot though does it, let's be honest. He was behind in the polls at one point to a pizza magnate. He was barely even standing on his record either, certainly not his political one anyway. He talked more about the fecking winter Olympics.
after the republicans talking up Bill Clinton so much, guess what. He gives a killer speech in as strong an endorsement he could of Obama...and finally bowing down to the man.
Now The republicans are trying to remind everyone Clinton was impeached.
Clinton probably added a few more speaking stops after that...and helped the Democrats with turnout.
bloody hell. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. This is shooting yourself in the head.
Now The republicans are trying to remind everyone Clinton was impeached.
Clinton probably added a few more speaking stops after that...and helped the Democrats with turnout.
bloody hell. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. This is shooting yourself in the head.btw anyone saw Romney on Meet the Press? Willard is saying he will repeal Obamacare..but will keep this part, that part..oh and that part as well
oh I have to say this...Gregory is about the worst moderator of any political show on television currently. poor Russet must turning in his grave after what this guy has done to his show.
oh I have to say this...Gregory is about the worst moderator of any political show on television currently. poor Russet must turning in his grave after what this guy has done to his show.
So, the same people that is re-eanacting Civil War Battles for the last 130 years and has never accepted the way that war ended will suddenly have a change of heart in issues that are current?
Suddenly? I said eventually.
They accepted they lost the argument on slavery and civil rights eventually (more or less).
And follows a batshit crazy religion that is practically a cult.
Eventually those over-40s will die off or just give up. If the GOP is lucky, the young GOP crowd will move towards the middle and save the party.
You'd think so...but you talk to Young Republicans and it seems like the social issues are the things they want to talk about most, oh and Immigration.
That youth support has already been brainwashed.
Could it be that the US is evolving beyond the days when the Southern Strategy will work? Or is that too premature?
The republicans appealed to conservative Christians to get votes. In exchange they adopted these social platforms.
Now they and the teabaggers (a Dick Armey manufactured group of blind libertarians) have taken over the party.
They are stuck. Frankly I don't see young Republicans coming to the center either. Who joins the current republican party? Those that buy into their platforms, which appeal to an increasingly narrow group of people.
This election will reinforce their beliefs because when Romney loses, they will blame him...a fake conservative. They will resolve to nominate a true conservative the next time.
When the President visited Scott Van Duzer, the owner of the Big Apple Pizza & Pasta Restaurant in Ft. Pierce, Fla.
Gotta love America. Can't for the life of me figure out why so many Americans despise Obama. He's fecking cool.I bet no one wants to pick up Romney like that.
...well, some might want to pick him up, but I don't think they want to set him back down quite so gently.
...well, some might want to pick him up, but I don't think they want to set him back down quite so gently.
The pizza owner is a Republican who voted for Obama in 2008 and will do so again this year.
When the President visited Scott Van Duzer, the owner of the Big Apple Pizza & Pasta Restaurant in Ft. Pierce, Fla.
americansOne wrong move and the fecker's dead
That was my first thought, might have been pre-arranged.
I am thinking backache! more like.
Excellent piece here...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/simon-jackman/biggest-lead-over-romney_b_1868893.html
Obama's Biggest Lead Over Romney Since March
We're now 60 hours or so past the Democratic convention. It is now clear that the Democrats got the better of the convention bounces. Indeed, recent national polls suggest that the Democrats' bounce not only erased some tenuous gains by Romney, but is propelling Obama into a commanding lead. In fact, Obama is now polling stronger than at any time in the last six months.
Consider the following. Today's release of Rasmussen's tracking poll showed Obama leading Romney by four points, 49 percent to 45 percent (interviews spanning Sept. 6 to Sept. 8). What makes this result especially noteworthy is that Rasmussen's results tends to skew in a pro-Republican direction, by as much as a percentage point or more; thus, their Obama +4 result is likely an underestimate of Obama's lead over Romney at the moment. Ipsos/Reuters and Gallup are also reporting Obama +4 results over essentially the same field periods.
American Research Group has a Romney +3 result (interviews spanning Sept. 4-6); interviews by Rasmussen spanning Sept. 3-5 also had Romney +3. These are the last national polls to show Romney leading Obama.
Using the tracking model I've developed for Pollster, I find that Obama is now polling against Romney better than he has since early March, during the heat of the Republican nominating campaign. Indeed, over the first week of September, Obama has picked up a percentage point of vote share over Romney, to now lead Romney by almost 3 percentage points.
A key question is whether the Obama surge in national polling is showing in the swing-states? With the conventions behind us, we can expect more swing state polling this week and beyond. But based on (a) the available state-level polls; (b) modeling that links national and state-level polling, I estimate that Obama's current position translates into about 308 Electoral College votes. There is a reasonable amount of uncertainty in the state-by-state estimates of voting intentions, which in turn means the Electoral College estimate is itself subject to considerable uncertainty. Nonetheless, the probability that Obama would win 270 Electoral College votes or more is about 85 percent.
Two "set pieces" of the campaign are behind us: the Veep announcement and the conventions. Neither produced a sizeable shift towards Romney, at least in the national polling. Romney may be running out of opportunities to sway public opinion his way.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/simon-jackman/biggest-lead-over-romney_b_1868893.html
Obama's Biggest Lead Over Romney Since March
We're now 60 hours or so past the Democratic convention. It is now clear that the Democrats got the better of the convention bounces. Indeed, recent national polls suggest that the Democrats' bounce not only erased some tenuous gains by Romney, but is propelling Obama into a commanding lead. In fact, Obama is now polling stronger than at any time in the last six months.
Consider the following. Today's release of Rasmussen's tracking poll showed Obama leading Romney by four points, 49 percent to 45 percent (interviews spanning Sept. 6 to Sept. 8). What makes this result especially noteworthy is that Rasmussen's results tends to skew in a pro-Republican direction, by as much as a percentage point or more; thus, their Obama +4 result is likely an underestimate of Obama's lead over Romney at the moment. Ipsos/Reuters and Gallup are also reporting Obama +4 results over essentially the same field periods.
American Research Group has a Romney +3 result (interviews spanning Sept. 4-6); interviews by Rasmussen spanning Sept. 3-5 also had Romney +3. These are the last national polls to show Romney leading Obama.
Using the tracking model I've developed for Pollster, I find that Obama is now polling against Romney better than he has since early March, during the heat of the Republican nominating campaign. Indeed, over the first week of September, Obama has picked up a percentage point of vote share over Romney, to now lead Romney by almost 3 percentage points.
A key question is whether the Obama surge in national polling is showing in the swing-states? With the conventions behind us, we can expect more swing state polling this week and beyond. But based on (a) the available state-level polls; (b) modeling that links national and state-level polling, I estimate that Obama's current position translates into about 308 Electoral College votes. There is a reasonable amount of uncertainty in the state-by-state estimates of voting intentions, which in turn means the Electoral College estimate is itself subject to considerable uncertainty. Nonetheless, the probability that Obama would win 270 Electoral College votes or more is about 85 percent.
Two "set pieces" of the campaign are behind us: the Veep announcement and the conventions. Neither produced a sizeable shift towards Romney, at least in the national polling. Romney may be running out of opportunities to sway public opinion his way.
PPP polls has Obama up by 5 in Ohio and importantly up by 1 in NC...slowly ticking up.
Nate has the President at 319.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
Nate has the President at 319.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
per the radio report I heard this morning it was pre-approved by the Prez's security.
at that picture.
Yeah but he's a black muslim socialist innit. Who wasn't born there.
It's a fecking joke. Anyone who was remotely anti-Bush was unpatriotic, and probably a Communist 5 years ago. Now the only people who truly love the USA are apparently the people who fiercely hate the President of the United States.
Hmmmm...What changed? I wonder.
- Status