Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2012 4:58:54 GMT -5
fuck Romney, fuck Ron Paul!
this GEEZER is a GEEZER!
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Feb 2, 2012 13:24:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by thuperthonic on Feb 2, 2012 18:02:47 GMT -5
Wouldn't that only matter if Obama were facing someone people approved of?
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Feb 2, 2012 18:47:27 GMT -5
Wouldn't that only matter if Obama were facing someone people approved of? No. Not really: The map was based on net positives. The anti-Obama movement is very strong, and will outpace the turnout of Obama's supporters vastly, who feel very unenthusiastic. So keeping that in mind, Obama is in some serious trouble at the moment with the likes of PA and Ohio. Frankly, if Obama fails to win PA, I think he loses the election (as surely the likes of Ohio would turn red if the liberal Keystone state does). A lot can change in 9 months. And the economy is improving, but will the improvement continue? Will it be fast enough? Who knows. Obama just dropped to 36% approval on the economy. With that being the number one issue of the electorate, it's hard seeing him winning re-election. (Once again: Presidential campaigns don't matter, unless it's a very very close election, like Gore/Bush, so thinking Romney's current lack of universal appeal will win the election for Obama is off base). To put it in perspective: If Bush had a 36% approval rating on foreign policy/terrorism going into 2004, do you think he would have still beaten Kerry? I don't.
|
|
|
Post by Rifles on Feb 3, 2012 8:41:32 GMT -5
To put it in perspective: If Bush had a 36% approval rating on foreign policy/terrorism going into 2004, do you think he would have still beaten Kerry? I don't. Yes, because Kerry was dull and did nothing to galvanize people whatsoever, very similar to Mitt Romney. The only thing Kerry had going for himself was that he wasn't Bush, but he was so "status-quo" he didn't get anyone off the couch. If he had even an ounce of charisma he would've smoked Bush. This election is looking very similar to 2004. Unless things change fairly drastically, I don't see Romney beating Obama regardless of your gallup polls and whatever maps you post with your nose in the air. I have some pretty hardcore republicans in my family and not one of them is excited about Mitt. A few of them actually support Ron Paul, which shocked me. He's the only guy that's done anything to separate himself and really show no fear. I think you're fooling yourself at this point if you think Romney is going to save the country if he gets voted in. There needs to be some serious reform across the board and I just don't see it happening with the current pool of people we have in the running.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Feb 3, 2012 9:01:52 GMT -5
Unemployment now at 8.3%. This number will be Obama's saving grace. And should it hold at 8.3%, and more crucially, improve, Obama will have a second term, regardless of the current mood here in February. That's been my prediction all along - watch the trend of the unemployment number.
As of February, I'm pretty sure he would lose. But once the public have a better sense the economy is improving (should it continue to improve as such), then support for Obama will grow. Obama should thank his lucky stars of the timing of this, should it continue......
|
|
|
Post by Rifles on Feb 3, 2012 9:31:07 GMT -5
You're really hedging your bets nicely here. If Romney wins, you can celebrate the victory and bask in conservative glory, and if Obama wins you can still be snarky and claim you were right all along because the economy improved enough to push him into a 2nd term.
I see what you're up to.
|
|
|
Post by masterplan200 on Feb 5, 2012 6:14:27 GMT -5
NL4E, do you Republicans want another war? Iran will attack the US if you attack them.
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Feb 5, 2012 10:44:34 GMT -5
NL4E, do you Republicans want another war? Iran will attack the US if you attack them. The problem I have is that Isreal is not helping matters much. They keep talking about attacking Iran when quite frankly they don't have any nuclear weapons and quite frankly their very methods of producing uranium are crude at best. Their method is quite literally the equivalent of them using an easy bake oven to make uranium. It's not enough, nor will it be enough to produce uranium at a high enough level to create a nuclear weapon. Secondly, Rupiblicans (and some Democrats) keeps talking about blockading Iran, while not seeing that a blockade is an act of war. I believe it was a couple debates ago, while in Florida that Ron Paul was the only candidate who knew that a blockade consisted of an act of war. How can you be a leader of this country or any representative and not know that? Anyways, basically if America does a bloacks then Iran will probably shut down the straits of Hormuz and all trade will stop in the Gulf region causing America to take action because a shut down of the strait of Hormuz would mean an economic collapse for the US. I'm not overstating when I say economic collapse. America would probably double dip into another recession and stay in it for three more years. So Obama has a few choices, he can make a deal with Iran (and lose his election in the process), he can blockade and try to do a stare down with Iran and hope they back off, or he can take the middle road. And that's him trying to keep Isreal off of Iran's back while also policing Iran long enough until he gets re-elected for a second term. Which will thereby leave him free to do whatever he wants. I think he'll probably take the middle road. As any politician would do. He'll try to bide his time and hope that he can keep Isreal off Iran long enough to make it through the election.
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Feb 5, 2012 11:10:25 GMT -5
To put it in perspective: If Bush had a 36% approval rating on foreign policy/terrorism going into 2004, do you think he would have still beaten Kerry? I don't. Yes, because Kerry was dull and did nothing to galvanize people whatsoever, very similar to Mitt Romney. The only thing Kerry had going for himself was that he wasn't Bush, but he was so "status-quo" he didn't get anyone off the couch. If he had even an ounce of charisma he would've smoked Bush. This election is looking very similar to 2004. Unless things change fairly drastically, I don't see Romney beating Obama regardless of your gallup polls and whatever maps you post with your nose in the air. quote] It could Reagan vs. Carter 1980. Carter came into the election with the hostage siuation, a fractured base (because of Ted Kennedy), a charasmatic candidate on the rise, while most importantly having a bad economy. One paraellel is the bad economy. The economy under Carter actually wasn't too bad. It wasn't until the controversy with Iran when they shut down the strait of Hormuz that economy tanked and Carter had little chance (Obama is facing the same threat of Hormuz being closed). Obama better candidate than Carter ever could be, Romney will never be as good as candidate as Regan was. or Kerry vs. Bush 2004. Incumbent candidate that most people knew couldn't do the job, while there was Kerry who everyone knew could do the job better. But Kerry wasn't able to connect and Bush was. Bush won the likability battle, while winning the election. It's the one problem I have with Romney as a candidate. He just doesn't pass the likability test. And when looking around it is hard to find candidates since FDR who have failed that test and have been elected in. Nixon would be one, but Nixon benefited enough from Kennedy being assasinated and the Democtatic base becoming splintered. And there's H.W. Bush who benefited from Reagan stumping for him. At some point, likability becomes a major factor. Being able to connect becomes a major factor. And I just haven't seen either of the two within Romney. In my mind, he's a weak candidate in a very very weak field. Probably still too early to look at head to heads, but Obama is leading out of the margin of error in most polls for Pennsylvania and Obama has a healthy lead in Ohio. He takes Ohio and Pennsylvania he wins. No doubt about it. Romney would have to sweep the rest of the battleground states to win. Which would be near impossible. As long as it stays the stauts quo or very muich near it then he wins.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Feb 6, 2012 16:36:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Rifles on Feb 6, 2012 19:42:28 GMT -5
Man, you really do yourself no favors when it comes to political discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Feb 18, 2012 10:56:47 GMT -5
Fitting for this thread. From last week:
|
|
|
Post by caro on Feb 29, 2012 12:22:49 GMT -5
Are you a volunteer for Romney's campaign?
|
|
|
Post by masterplan200 on Feb 29, 2012 22:36:15 GMT -5
Santorum leads Ohio apparently.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2012 3:44:22 GMT -5
My vote for US president is NL4E himself!
Imagine that!
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Mar 1, 2012 18:39:19 GMT -5
Santorum leads Ohio apparently. At this stage prior to MI, Santorum had a big lead, too. We all know what happened there..... Likewise, a new Gallup Poll has Romney 50%, Obama 46%. Polls are volatile in primaries, and it's way too far out to take any notice of them for the general.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2012 6:34:45 GMT -5
next US president is nothing compared to next L4E mod....
make it me!
vote now!!!
|
|
|
Post by RocketMan on Mar 5, 2012 11:52:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Mar 7, 2012 9:43:32 GMT -5
Mitt won Ohio. Told you. Think Mitt has the nomination essentially sealed up now. It was a good Super Tuesday for him
|
|
|
Post by RocketMan on Mar 7, 2012 10:08:35 GMT -5
Mitt won Ohio. Told you. Think Mitt has the nomination essentially sealed up now. It was a good Super Tuesday for him he won't have a chance against obama
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2012 10:59:58 GMT -5
Mitt won Ohio. Told you. Think Mitt has the nomination essentially sealed up now. It was a good Super Tuesday for him he won't have a chance against obama I don't know, they both seem pretty full of shit to me. Besides, does anyone think that knocking off an incumbent will be easy?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2012 15:35:12 GMT -5
Mitt is the best of a very poor bunch. looks like the man that couldn't beat the man that couldn't beat George W Bush will be the Republican choice.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Mar 8, 2012 9:20:44 GMT -5
Mitt is the best of a very poor bunch. looks like the man that couldn't beat the man that couldn't beat George W Bush will be the Republican choice. Lest you all forget, Bill Clinton was seen as a very weak candidate at this stage in 1992, and we all know how he turned out...... And you can't compare the 2004 election to the 2012 one. Sure, the out come may be the same with a very slender incumbent win, but for different reasons. The mood of the country is much worse now than it was 8 years ago, and that plays into the hands of Romney more than Obama......
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Mar 8, 2012 23:13:10 GMT -5
he won't have a chance against obama I don't know, they both seem pretty full of shit to me. Besides, does anyone think that knocking off an incumbent will be easy? if this country can vote bush in for a second term, anything is possible.
|
|