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.
Why did the polls matter so much about Bush? He wasn't going to be reelected either, but the liberals delighted in the polls then. Now the shoe is on the other foot and they don't like it.
Nothing matters to liberals when it comes to Obama, polls, the truth, the law.
People fell for the hype in '08, and by the time '12 rolled around, most of the media was well entrenched into covering for Obama while at the same time, demonizing opposing candidates. Heck, even that debate seemed rigged with Candy Crowley.
Maybe people are starting to wake up...
I should clarify -- I hardly blame people for falling for the hype in '08; I even fell for some of it.
But by '12, they should have known better. I do think that Romney, as a businessman and basically non-politician, would have us in a better situation with jobs and the economy. It's too bad that people are so easily offended by one sound byte about 47%, which the Obama campaign used to their advantage, among other nastiness, in a negative re-election campaign. As Obama had even said himself, you run a negative campaign when you have nothing good of your own to run on.
Then you poll the people, in the districts those in Congress are elected from, and that 9% as a whole, jumps up to over 60%, for their representative.
The only way to solve this, is just like last time there was this much of a split in the nation.
Actually, as the last 2 elections have shown (2012 and last night) the radical wave of the Tea Party has crested and more rational thinking is returning.
I should clarify -- I hardly blame people for falling for the hype in '08; I even fell for some of it.
But by '12, they should have known better. I do think that Romney, as a businessman and basically non-politician, would have us in a better situation with jobs and the economy. It's too bad that people are so easily offended by one sound byte about 47%, which the Obama campaign used to their advantage, among other nastiness, in a negative re-election campaign. As Obama had even said himself, you run a negative campaign when you have nothing good of your own to run on.
Well, but most voters disagree with you and there is no evidence that a businessperson has any greater understanding of macroeconomics than other candidates. Herbert Hoover was a businessman and so was Carter.
Instead, Romney alienated voters, saying that half the voters were moochers.
After all, what is Romney’s case – that is, why does he want us to think he should be president? It’s not about ideology: Romney offers nothing but warmed-over right-wing platitudes, with an extra helping of fraudulent arithmetic, and it’s fairly obvious that even he himself doesn’t believe anything he’s saying.
Instead, his thing is competence: supposedly, his record as a successful businessman should tell us that he knows how to create jobs. And this in turn means that we have every right to ask exactly what kind of a businessman he was.
Now, the truth is even under the best of circumstances, the case for electing a businessman as president would be very weak. A country is not a company – does any company sell more than 80 percent of what it makes to its own workers, the way America does? — and competitive success in business bears no particular relationship to the principles of macroeconomic policy. So even if Romney were a true captain of industry, a latter-day Andrew Carnegie, this wouldn’t be a strong qualification.
In any case, however, Romney wasn’t that kind of businessman. He didn’t build businesses, he bought and sold them – sometimes restructuring them in ways that added jobs, often in ways that preserved profits but destroyed jobs, and fairly often in ways that extracted money for Bain but killed the business in the process.
Well, but most voters disagree with you and there is no evidence that a businessperson has any greater understanding of macroeconomics than other candidates. Herbert Hoover was a businessman and so was Carter.
Instead, Romney alienated voters, saying that half the voters were moochers.
Originally Posted by MTAtech
Well, but most voters disagree with you and there is no evidence that a businessperson has any greater understanding of macroeconomics than other candidates. Herbert Hoover was a businessman and so was Carter.
Instead, Romney alienated voters, saying that half the voters were moochers.
The truth is the truth. Oh that's right, you prefer to believe a liar. Obama thinks you are stupid, obviously he is right. ... And Obama said "if you like your insurance you can keep your insurance Period"
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.
Nothing matters to liberals when it comes to Obama, polls, the truth, the law.
