Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Cakewalk City for Obama with ~47% approval and more like 45% approval among people who will actually vote? Ha.
He wouldn't be concerned about raising so much money if he thought he had an easy win.
Romney helped create far more jobs at Bain than he helped cut. FAR more. His economic record in MA was actually pretty good. That 47th in job growth statistic is pure BS, as I've explained countlessly on this forum before. He left MA with a 4.6% unemployment rate. 4.6% sounds pretty good to me. That's a lot better than a rate of over 8% that would be over 11% if so many people hadn't dropped out of the labor force (and still close to 11% even factoring in baby boomers starting to retire in larger numbers).
Obama has been the only president who has been in office when there have been deficits of over a trillion dollars each year (and, in fact, the only president who has ever been in office when there has been an annual deficit of over a trillion dollars...Bush is also partially deserving of blame for the deficit in FY 2009).
More debt was added in the first 3 years and 2 months of Obama's presidency than was added in 8 years under Bush...and Bush's record on debt was horrendous enough.
Obama's plans call for increased spending and phony fixes like the Buffett Rule that would do virtually nothing to fix the deficit but are simply part of his plan to pit groups against one another to try to pander to them to get re-elected. His plans would be virtually sure to increase the deficit. And Romney does have plans to cut the deficit.
The national UE average was only 4.6% for 2006. Romney left office in January, 2007. Mass was comfortably just a little below average, #34 out of 50.
You may be right, but for as long as I've been alive, I can't recall a single time when the GOP ever stopped talking about gays, Blacks, abortion, fear, and terror.
It's like asking a drug addict to stop talking about getting high.
As usual, its Democrats bringing up gays, blacks, abortions etc, and the GOP is responding
You may be right, but for as long as I've been alive, I can't recall a single time when the GOP ever stopped talking about gays, Blacks, abortion, fear, and terror.
It's like asking a drug addict to stop talking about getting high.
Pretty much this. The Obama campaign has been playing a long game of rope-a-dope with the Republicans since 2008 and especially since they took the House. Look for the ads this year to mostly be Republican talking points from the primaries.
The early Republican primary debates showed that other than Huntsman and Daniels, the Republican candidates had zero interest in actually discussing policy. It has been nothing but, "Obama is wrong" regardless of the topic. So instead of debating ideas, Republicans have been talking about abortion, contraception, gays, and all sorts of single-issue nonsense and have taken the party to the far right in the process.
And if the GOP's response to getting beat this coming November is "We lost because we weren't conservative enough" you can look for the party to be lost on the national level for a full generation after 2016.
Pretty much this. The Obama campaign has been playing a long game of rope-a-dope with the Republicans since 2008 and especially since they took the House. Look for the ads this year to mostly be Republican talking points from the primaries.
The early Republican primary debates showed that other than Huntsman and Daniels, the Republican candidates had zero interest in actually discussing policy. It has been nothing but, "Obama is wrong" regardless of the topic. So instead of debating ideas, Republicans have been talking about abortion, contraception, gays, and all sorts of single-issue nonsense and have taken the party to the far right in the process.
And if the GOP's response to getting beat this coming November is "We lost because we weren't conservative enough" you can look for the party to be lost on the national level for a full generation after 2016.
Romney has been talking about jobs and the economy, not about social issues except when forced to briefly touch on them. Daniels was never a candidate. Saying that Daniels was a candidate just makes you look even sillier.
And you have no clue who is going to win this November. Obama and Romney are basically tied in the polls and Obama's approval is still to low from a historical perspective for him to be re-elected (though Obama does have some advantages as well).
Let's keep that focus on Swiss $Mitt's time as a jobs destroyer at Bain ... his amazingly weak economic record while running the show in Massachusetts ... and how his (misguided) policies would explode the deficit
Romney has been talking about jobs and the economy, not about social issues except when forced to briefly touch on them.
Romney hasn't staked much of apolicy stance beyond an "cut taxes" and "repeal Obamacare." Okay, cut taxes and then what? Repeal Obamacare and replace it with what exactly?
Quote:
Daniels was never a candidate. Saying that Daniels was a candidate just makes you look even sillier.
Doh! That's a late Friday brain melt mistake. I meant Pawlenty.
Quote:
And you have no clue who is going to win this November. Obama and Romney are basically tied in the polls and Obama's approval is still to low from a historical perspective for him to be re-elected (though Obama does have some advantages as well).
I think it's going to get ugly for Romney after the Obama campaign actually kicks into high gear. The only way it will be close is if there is low voter turnout, which is likely.
Romney hasn't staked much of apolicy stance beyond an "cut taxes" and "repeal Obamacare." Okay, cut taxes and then what? Repeal Obamacare and replace it with what exactly?
He's also talked about reducing regulations, cutting spending, etc. He has a detailed plan on his website.
The only way it will be close is if there is low voter turnout, which is likely.
Look at approval ratings of incumbent presidents who are re-elected. Obama's is quite a bit under at ~47% and probably closer to 45% among those who will actually vote, since Republicans and Republican-leaning independents turn out more. Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, Ford, etc. all underperformed their approval ratings as a percentage of the vote share. Carter did overperform his but still lost in a landslide.
I'm not saying Obama is certain to not be re-elected...his campaign could do a good enough job of portraying Romney as a greedy, evil 1%-er or the economy could really pick up between now and November, getting his approval ratings up enough, or he could promise enough to certain special interest groups to get re-elected. Also, third party candidates taking away enough votes from Romney without taking away many from Obama could get him re-elected while still getting quite a bit less than 50% of the vote. That being said, none of this is certain or even likely to happen.
Romney does have some weaknesses, though, as does the GOP in general. So I would say - right now - it's a tossup.
Last edited by afoigrokerkok; 05-18-2012 at 02:05 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wholeheartedly agree
