|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Sept 16, 2011 12:51:33 GMT -5
The only thing Romney's done that's any good is attack the Texas govenor, but I can't remember his name. Rick Perry. While I personally don't care for him, he's currently in a great position for the nomination. That being said, in recent debates Romney has out performed him, so I'm hoping the stormin Mormon can continue to erode Perry's support. It's looking more and more like either President Perry or President Romney, though.
|
|
Lundblad
Oasis Roadie
Nothing ever lasts forever
Posts: 428
|
Post by Lundblad on Oct 2, 2011 3:29:46 GMT -5
I like Huntsman, but as he has little chance of winning the nomination, I'm still hoping for Chris Christie to enter the race.
It's been quite an annoying primary season, because three of the people I hoped would run declined: Daniels, Pataki and Christie. But a lot of buzz around Christie at the moment.
Perry is, from my perspective, an idiot and Romney is SO sleazy. Who knows, really, which policies Romney will implement as president?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2011 5:58:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Oct 18, 2011 8:54:21 GMT -5
It's not going to be a problem. Believe me. Who really cares what someone's religious beliefs are? What's more concerning is why Obama spent 20 years associated with people like Jeremiah Wright. But whatever.
|
|
|
Post by globe on Oct 18, 2011 11:11:39 GMT -5
It's not going to be a problem. Believe me. Who really cares what someone's religious beliefs are?What's more concerning is why Obama spent 20 years associated with people like Jeremiah Wright. But whatever. Anybody who is thinking of voting for him should care if it is that case that this guy uses his religious belief's to formulate policy. I don't know if this actually is the case, as I don't know anything about him other than he has bonnie hair.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2011 11:19:30 GMT -5
Just seen this Mitt Romney bloke on tv. He actually has that stereotypical US president look about him.
Needs a name change though....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2011 11:12:42 GMT -5
i hope romney wins the republican nomination, i'm looking forward to a health care debate between him and obama
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2012 13:28:38 GMT -5
UK only just starting to report on the election through the main new stations...
Mitt Romney is the main man they seem to be showing the most....
|
|
|
Post by masterplan200 on Jan 6, 2012 1:29:30 GMT -5
It seems that Ron Paul supporters are the most annoying people, once you tell the truth. They annoy me constantly. As does Santorum.
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Jan 16, 2012 14:49:31 GMT -5
google santorum.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2012 16:39:38 GMT -5
anyone else think obama is gonna win the election just because he will be up against someone that independents won't vote for, i think it will be a low turnout for the election.
|
|
|
Post by thuperthonic on Jan 16, 2012 19:17:11 GMT -5
It *will* be a low turnout, as it should be. In his first term, Obama has revealed himself to be the status quo and nothing more, and Romney's obviously the status quo, so why would I vote for either of them? They act in the best interest of their highest paying donors, not the people they are in charge of leading. I like(d) Ron Paul but it seems like the mainstream media has done it's job and kept him and his "fringe views" (see The Constitution) on the outside looking in. Anyway, who cares who is President anymore? The promises are never kept and either side will go to war with Iran.
|
|
|
Post by Rifles on Jan 16, 2012 20:52:14 GMT -5
It *will* be a low turnout, as it should be. In his first term, Obama has revealed himself to be the status quo and nothing more, and Romney's obviously the status quo, so why would I vote for either of them? They act in the best interest of their highest paying donors, not the people they are in charge of leading. I like(d) Ron Paul but it seems like the mainstream media has done it's job and kept him and his "fringe views" (see The Constitution) on the outside looking in. Anyway, who cares who is President anymore? The promises are never kept and either side will go to war with Iran. Exactly! That is exactly how I feel, 100%. Well frickin said.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jan 17, 2012 12:32:05 GMT -5
It *will* be a low turnout, as it should be. In his first term, Obama has revealed himself to be the status quo and nothing more, and Romney's obviously the status quo, so why would I vote for either of them? They act in the best interest of their highest paying donors, not the people they are in charge of leading. I like(d) Ron Paul but it seems like the mainstream media has done it's job and kept him and his "fringe views" (see The Constitution) on the outside looking in. Anyway, who cares who is President anymore? The promises are never kept and either side will go to war with Iran. It will be a low turn out for the Democrats. But the Republicans will get behind their nominee as the drive to kick out Obama is huge. See the midterm elections as an example.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2012 15:48:48 GMT -5
most people are anti politician not anti obama why would they vote republican when its easier not to vote at all.
the biggest difference between romney and obama is romney thinks he gets his own planet when he dies.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jan 17, 2012 18:16:46 GMT -5
most people are anti politician not anti obama why would they vote republican when its easier not to vote at all. the biggest difference between romney and obama is romney thinks he gets his own planet when he dies. I have no idea where your basing any of this information off of. Conservatives still out number Liberals by quite some distance (exemplifying that the US remains a center-right country) according to a recent Gallup Poll: www.gallup.com/poll/152021/conservatives-remain-largest-ideological-group.aspxAnd from a CBS, Dec 2011 Poll: From: www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57340576-503544/grim-economic-outlook-weighs-down-obama-approval-rating/Look at the column of Democrats who say "Yes". That's awfully low, considering that's his base. Look at the strong contingent of Republicans who say "No". Therein lies the turnout discrepancy I detailed above. And the Independents, who will be very important in November, are quite negative on him, too - which only adds to the determination of replacing Obama vs. giving him four more years. And it's funny that you should say that about Romney, considering Obama has been the most narcissistic president in recent memory, thinking his oratory skills can usher in peace in the Middle East (he actually made things much worse) and bring about bipartisanship in the US (he's been the most divisive president ever) while trying to convince the public that Obamacare is the best thing ever (it's still vastly unpopular), while his actions all speak to the contrary. Oh, and need I mention the utter farce of the Noble Peace prize and his actual acceptance of it? Sigh. If anyone is an empty suit, who relies on smooth talking to get out of trouble and by doing so typifies a stereotypical politician, it's Obama. But hey, when all is said and done, he can tell his grandchildren that he was "present" (at Martha's Vineyard) when he was president. On a more related note: Remember 4 years ago when the Republican party was said to have been dead? Remember 3.5 years ago when the Tea Party came to fruition and people thought that only compounded the Republican's demise? Well, skip forward to the 2010 midterms and the upcoming 2012 general election. Looks much different, doesn't it?
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Jan 17, 2012 18:33:53 GMT -5
The problem with your assessment NL4E is that bases do not win Presidential elections. Independents do. That's the number to watch. Right now in the Gallup poll, Romney was ahead 43-38. Whoever wins independents will win the election.
The anti-Obama contingent isn't that big because in a time where a President should be ripe to be thrown out of office if the election happened today, Obama would either just barely win or just barely lose.
How is that even possible in an economy that is this bad? For me, that's a bad sign for Romney. He should be polling much better than what he is nationally and with independents. History shows that as election day comes closer, incumbents tends to get stronger. It doesn't happen for all them, but for most it does. I think the reason Romney isn't ahead more is because of Romney. People think he can do a good job, yet no one can really able to connect with him and that's a big factor. It reminds me of Bush vs. Kerry. People thought Kerry could do the job better, but they couldn't connect with him. And in the end, many people voted for Bush just because they liked him.
In the end, I'm not saying that Obama will win or lose, but even you must admit NL4E that it's a bad sign for Romney that he isn't polling better. Especially when as you sat Democrats are down and Obama is ready to be thrown out of office. The election really shouldn't be close, yet it will be. And I think much of has to do with the drawbacks that Romney has as a candidate. Drawbacks which may never be fixed.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jan 17, 2012 18:41:21 GMT -5
Spaneli, it's too soon to look at head-to-heads of the prospective nominee and Obama. For example, during this time in 1980, Jimmy Carter was polling 34% ahead of Ronald Reagan, and we all know how badly Carter ended up getting trounced. January 29th, 1980: "President Carter so dominates the American political scene now that his margin over Ronald Reagan in a post - Iowa trial heat has risen to an overwhelming 65-31 percent. And against George Bush, the GOP candidate who finished first in the recent Iowa caucuses , Carter leads by only a slighly lower 62-32 percent." www.harrisinteractive.com/vault/Harris-Interactive-Poll-Research-CARTER-NOW-FAR-AHEAD-OF-BOTH-REAGAN-AND-BUSH-1980-01.pdfIt's been said for 3 years now, but I really do think the Carter presidency is almost an entirely perfect case study to apply to Obama's presidency and the forthcoming 2012 election. (That being said, I don't think Romney will usher in a wave of Conservatism like Reagan was able to do). The Independents will be very important, yes. But we also need to look at how badly Obama is viewed in the traditional swing states - and most importantly, PA. Should he lose PA, I don't think he'll be able to win the election, as that's a state that has been carried by a Democrat for the past 2 decades. (I'm going to register to vote in PA for this reason. Strategy, bitches . So while the Independents are important; remember, it's more about the race to the magical 270 number, rather than the final percentage - just ask Al Gore!
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Jan 18, 2012 11:06:01 GMT -5
Spaneli, it's too soon to look at head-to-heads of the prospective nominee and Obama. For example, during this time in 1980, Jimmy Carter was polling 34% ahead of Ronald Reagan, and we all know how badly Carter ended up getting trounced. January 29th, 1980: "President Carter so dominates the American political scene now that his margin over Ronald Reagan in a post - Iowa trial heat has risen to an overwhelming 65-31 percent. And against George Bush, the GOP candidate who finished first in the recent Iowa caucuses , Carter leads by only a slighly lower 62-32 percent." www.harrisinteractive.com/vault/Harris-Interactive-Poll-Research-CARTER-NOW-FAR-AHEAD-OF-BOTH-REAGAN-AND-BUSH-1980-01.pdfIt's been said for 3 years now, but I really do think the Carter presidency is almost an entirely perfect case study to apply to Obama's presidency and the forthcoming 2012 election. (That being said, I don't think Romney will usher in a wave of Conservatism like Reagan was able to do). The Independents will be very important, yes. But we also need to look at how badly Obama is viewed in the traditional swing states - and most importantly, PA. Should he lose PA, I don't think he'll be able to win the election, as that's a state that has been carried by a Democrat for the past 2 decades. (I'm going to register to vote in PA for this reason. Strategy, bitches . So while the Independents are important; remember, it's more about the race to the magical 270 number, rather than the final percentage - just ask Al Gore! He can afford to lose PA if they change the ekection rules like they are planning. They're planning to make PA a spilt electoral state. Basically, if it's worth 21. The winner only gets 11 while the loser gets 10. He can lose PA if he wins Ohio and Florida. He can win PA, but if he loses Ohio and Florida he's done. Last time I checked I believe that Obama was ahead in Ohio and behind in Florida while tied in PA. PA is naturally democrat and he should get stronger there as the election draws nearer. If he stays status quo in Ohio, he's okay. And the difference between Obama and Carter is that the economy during Cater's term never stabilized. It continued its downward slide. Most enonomists have said that the economy will continue to SLOWLY grow, unless something major happens in Congress. Carter was never on a path to any growth. And secondly when the Hostage scandal happened it took away any hope of Carter being re-elected. If the status quo stays the same then Obama will be re-elected. Romney needs for it to get worse. And Romney isn't as good as a candidate as Reagan was. Again, Romney is struggling with connectability. Reagan never had that problem. In the modern era, at some point people have to like you for you to be elected (unless you're Nixon and you back into the Presidency) and I don't think that people naturally gravitate toward Romney. And that will be a problem which will continually plague him. I've worked as a volunteer on election day mulitple times and I can tell you that Romney's "disconnect" will hurt him with many voters. That's a guarantee and in an election which will come down to 1-2%, it may kill him, unless things get worse for Obama. So I guess the Carter/Regan Obama/Romney senario are similiar, but not the same. Romeny isn't Reagan and lacks the connectability that Regan had in spades. And I think that Obama is just plain in fact a better candidate than Carter with a much larger war chest of money to work with. And yes I will ask Al Gore, another candidate that electorate couldn't connect to, nor could gravitate to.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jan 18, 2012 12:14:22 GMT -5
The PA split would never ever happen. It just won't.
And because PA is so liberally oriented, it would be hard to see Obama winning the likes of Ohio should he lose PA. I think PA, for the first time in a couple decades, is in actual play in November, and I think it will be a very important state if Obama loses it. Obama may not win the election if he wins PA, but I think he will lose (or come very close to losing) the election should he lose the Keystone state.
And yes, the ability to connect is huge. When all is said and done, this could very well be a redux of George W. Bush and John Kerry in 2004. But as for now, I'm sticking with the Carter analogy despite Romney being no where near as charismatic as The Gipper.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2012 15:01:41 GMT -5
Romney looks like the sort of bloke who likes bondage...
Just sayin'
|
|
|
Post by Rifles on Jan 23, 2012 16:37:51 GMT -5
Hey NL4E, you feeling any of this Newt heat or you think Romney's got it in the bag? Mitt's been trying to lay low. I thought the GOP was just going to build up Newt so Mitt could knock him down and finally gain some momentum. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by masterplan200 on Jan 23, 2012 16:57:28 GMT -5
NL4E, you'll probably agree with an Iran invasion and subsquent annihilation of the US, if the republicians get in. Did you know that AMERICA had given Iran the tech.?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2012 18:43:26 GMT -5
NL4E, you'll probably agree with an Iran invasion and subsquent annihilation of the US, if the republicians get in. Did you know that AMERICA had given Iran the tech.? it is important that Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons precisely because Israel already does, how has aided Iran in the build up does not matter, currently their is no evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons but that doesn't mean they don't want them, obama must be hoping that no evidence of Iran building nuclear weapons comes to light before the election as any decision he would make would look either weak or opportunistic. I'll Just add that you don't need an invasion like iraq to prevent weapons being built. I just hope if the US does act that it does it on it's own terms and does not have it's hand forced by Israel. i hope romney is the republican nomination and not because obama stands a good chance of beating him but because he is the best of a weak field
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2012 19:09:56 GMT -5
|
|