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.
Anybody watching this thing knows the poll points are drifting apart, in favor of Democrats.
I was discussing with some friends what they thought of the Republican possibilities with another candidate? They agreed with a "could be." Romney is too polarizing with his religion, his previous activities, his wealth, and his attitude toward the middle class. However, some Democrats are going his way because of outright frustration. I don't know if those numbers will be enough. I felt the same way in 2008. Admittedly, Obama was favored out of frustration with 8 years of Republican GWB's tenure and the Iraq War. I don't remember the spread, but McCain's major issues were his age, but much more so than that, Sarah Palin.
Imho NO! The reason being is the Republicans are not trusted.I am even starting to wonder how many republicans are gonna get throwed out of the House and Senate this coming election
I think Jon Huntsman would have won even though he is a wealthy Mormon as well. But then he is a far cry from what the Republican party of today is about. That is the problem; the wingnuts have taken over and good centrist candidates have no chance of being nominated unless they deny what they are like Romney did. Eventually that catches up with you as we are seeing. Huntsman refused to go along with the nonsense and was out very early, though like I said he would have beaten Obama.
Republican candidates have to go hard right to win the nomination then then swing back to the middle to win the election -and they wind up with a muddled skitzo message. The party has moved to the right with Tea Party rhetoric over the past few years and ceded the middle to the Democrats. It's a problem for Republicans no matter who their candidate is.
I think it would have been the same because Obama supporters have been continually brainwashed by the liberal media since at least 2007.
1) War on Women - It's so pathetically out of control, that some of these wackos actually believe that if a woman wants to have sex, you and I should pay to help her to not get pregnant, and if her birth control fails or she forgets to use it or whatever, then we should pay to have her baby removed from her womb.
2) No War on Terror - It's so bad that some of them actually believe that the dead ambassador being dragged through the streets of Libya had all those nice men trying to help him.
OMG! 47% of Americans already can't take care of themselves, and now most of them can't think for themselves.
War on Women - It's so pathetically out of control, that some of these wackos actually believe that if a woman wants to have sex, you and I should pay to help her to not get pregnant, and if her birth control fails or she forgets to use it or whatever, then we should pay to have her baby removed from her womb.
Not at all. Women believe that if they have an insurance policy, there is a reasonable expectation of coverage under that policy for prescription birth control, just as there would be for any other prescription medication. Tell me why that is wrong. I have always had prescription birth control coverage, and when my husband had a vasectomy that was also covered.
I don't think elective abortion is covered under any policy, and don't think it should be. I do think a D&C procedure to clean up after a miscarriage should be covered. I also think emergency contraception should be covered.
Keep in mind that unplanned pregnancies, which are prevented by proper use of birth control, are far more expensive than the cost of prevention. With an unplanned pregnancy, there is the cost of prenatal care, and the birth, and postnatal care...far more expensive than paying for years of birth control pills. Not to mention the cost of a child. If you are talking about a woman on Medicaid, it is far less expensive for her birth control to be paid for, than to pay for the WIC and food stamps, and whatever else addtional she may qualify for now that she has a child she can't afford. Especially for people on public assistance, we should do everything we can as a society to prevent unplanned pregnancy because the cost is far more if the woman actually follows through with the pregnancy. I'm not an advocate of abortion, although I don't think it should be outlawed, particularly in the first trimester. But we should educate, advocate, provide morning after pills on demand, whatever we need to do to prevent pregnancy in the first place, absolutely.
I really don't understand all the hullaboo about this, frankly.
OMG! 47% of Americans already can't take care of themselves
How do you make the logic leap from 47% pay no federal income tax to 47% can't take care of themselves? Much of that 47% are workers who get tax deducted from their paychecks but get tax refunds due to standard deductions and credits - many of which where implemented by Bush and Reagan.
Republicans already have it clinched... if by "it" you mean their buttcheeks in horror at the thought of another four years of Obama (among other things... really, they're pretty much always puckered up about some thing or other).
No. The primary happened and the person with the most votes won the Republican nomination and some of the candidates stayed through to the bitter end. I also don't think we are getting a real picture of how people will be voting. I think we are getting false polls and propaganda from the media that for whatever reason I cannot understand seem to want Obama to win.
The first time around I thought the media just wanted a historical event to happen so they could report on it; but what kind of media would be so biased in wanting our American way of life to be destroyed? It is a real puzzle to me. Are these news people really Americans? They sound more like a bunch of communists.
I get at least three e-mails a day suggesting that it would be a good idea to vote for Romney. I get none suggesting that Obama would be the right choice. There is a lot of information going around the country that the news people do not know is happening. It makes some of them really look stupid.
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.
