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.
3 term gov, whoop de do, that gets him Texas, and other solidly red states. Its the swing ones that make or break. JM carried almost all normal red ones. When will Jm be sworn in?
Its just numbers, BO won indys by 8, and they were 40% of vote. That equals 3.2 percent net effect. He won the election with a plurality of 8 percent. Dems who voted for him (%) was about the same as GOP. GOP turnout percentage of their registered was HIGHER, but Dem overwhelming outnumbering them equaled most of the other 4.8 percentage points.
GOP to win MUST win independents by most likely 5 plus points.
It doesn't even get him Texas. Ron Paul won a state-wide poll among Texans not that long ago between the two of them.
Last night helped to expose more about Perry, and I have a feeling there is even more in there what will knock him down. I thought he was strong in the beginning of the debate, particularly in exchanges with Romney. But, by the second half, he stumbled big time when he came under scrutiny for forcing vaccines onto 12-year old girls and then granting in-state tuition to illegal immigrants, a position that you would expect out of Deval Patrick of MA, not a TX governor. I do give him credit though - he simply stood by that decision and continued to argue it amidst a sea of 'boos' from the audience. However, I found it quite hypocritical for Perry to claim that its state's rights to grant privileges to illegal aliens and yet want to distort and hammer MA for passing its healthcare reform bill. You either respect states' rights or you don't.
Furthermore, Perry was dishonest on Romney's account of Social Security, however. Having read No Apology, Romney wrote that he believes that SS is indeed a valuable program but that the raiding of it by the government was criminal, not the system itself. And yes, I plan on reading 'Fed Up' to see what else Perry believes.
Overall, in the last two debates, Romney has been far and away the most factual, while Perry has resorted to distortions of other candidates' positions and simply good 'talk.' I have a feeling (or at least I hope) that voters from the Tea Party and others on the right get educated about these candidates and see Perry for what he is - simply a pandering politician who has exaggerated his record.
The only person last night that I thought was terrible was Jon Huntsman. Personally, I felt that he was very condescending and just came off very cold in some of the exchanges. He certainly turned off the base and likely turned off many others. He should just save some money and drop out now.
Michele Bachmann has her best night last night and she really hammered Perry quite effectively, particularly about the 'pay for play' with the vaccines. I think that really turned people off and made people re-question their support of Perry.
The rest of the candidates were fine. I find Herman Cain the most entertaining out of the bunch for sure. I think he has a great stage presence, but I just don't think he has the 'experience' to lead this country. I am tired of Rick Santorum touting how he won an election in a Democratically-leaning state - fact is, he also lost re-election by a wide margin in that state. And Newt Gingrich is still a strong debater but he can't gain traction. Instead, his role in debates has almost been reduced to simply refocusing on attacking President Obama. Ron Paul - well, what can I say? The man is out there and will never win a general election.
Are there any Repubs that think they have a viable candidate? For that matter, are there any TPNuts that think they do? Wow, what a display last night.
1. Rick Perry loves illegals and feels like an illegal immigrant should be able to go to UT-Austin and pay in-state tuition over an American citizen from Oklahoma.
2. Rick Santorum thinks Americans are too stupid to understand motive-- and cause and effect. (i.e. what caused Terrorists to attack us... it certainly wasn't because they hate our "freedom"). Ron Paul told the truth about what the terrorists said, but America would rather believe in a "fairy tale."
3. The tea party has been hijacked by complete idiots (neocons) who are blood thirsty for more war
4. John Huntsman thinks people from Texas like everything bigger, but thinks people from Massachusetts are "smart"-- so evidently he thinks people from Texas are dumb. Thanks, jack-ss.
5. Obama will probably be re-elected because America is full of a bunch of morons who don't have common sense.
1. Rick Perry loves illegals and feels like an illegal immigrant should be able to go to UT-Austin and pay in-state tuition over an American citizen from Oklahoma.
2. Rick Santorum thinks Americans are too stupid to understand motive-- and cause and effect. (i.e. what caused Terrorists to attack us... it certainly wasn't because they hate our "freedom"). Ron Paul told the truth about what the terrorists said, but America would rather believe in a "fairy tale."
3. The tea party has been hijacked by complete idiots (neocons) who are blood thirsty for more war
4. John Huntsman thinks people from Texas like everything bigger, but thinks people from Massachusetts are "smart"-- so evidently he thinks people from Texas are dumb. Thanks, jack-ss.
5. Obama will probably be re-elected because America is full of a bunch of morons who don't have common sense.
The Country is in dire need of a Republican Party.
But if you look at even what the writer of that article said was "the main thing" about the candidates performance, Ron Paul was the only one that got good comments. It said "the main thing" about how Ron Paul did was:Reprised his role from the debates four years ago by picking fights on national security that produce fire and brimstone.[LEFT]
Read more: The Page by Mark Halperin | Grading the Tampa Debate
[/LEFT]
I think fire and brimstone and bringing new perspective to "the discussion" in these debates exposes the honest positions of the candidates and forces them to talk about what they should be taking about.
ALL the other candidates except Bachman got bad comments when it came to "the main thing" about each one. So I wouldn't go by the grading.
sure by borrowing from Peter to pay Paul and by raising the anti everytime one turns around. It has to be revamped...
Let's look at it this way? I am not an economist and I doubt you are, but that isn't the issue:
The program was started in the mid 1930s as a way to give a few extra $$s to seniors past 65. At that time the average life expectancy was 64. Thus a large number would never even collect and those who did would only recieve it for a short time. I don't think there was even the SS disability program included, but I am not sure.
Nita
A few extra $$ ??
Come on! SS was started to keep the elderly out of poverty and off of the streets with a cup in their hands! Way to minimize SS for political purposes.
Quote:
A limited form of the Social Security program began as a measure to implement "social insurance" during the Great Depression of the 1930s, when poverty rates among senior citizens exceeded 50 percent.
4. John Huntsman thinks people from Texas like everything bigger, but thinks people from Massachusetts are "smart"-- so evidently he thinks people from Texas are dumb. Thanks, jack-ss.
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.
