|
Post by RocketMan on Mar 22, 2012 15:02:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Mar 23, 2012 13:25:07 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...... Clinton and Romney are two different candidates. What Clinton had going for him, Romney doesn't: the ability to connect This race aligns much more with Kerry vs. Bush 2004 imo in terms of the type of candidates running. Romney IS Kerry. The guy who can't connect, the guy who seems stiff, the person who is seen as not an every man, and the guy who is a flip flopper. Obama seems more like the Bush mold of candidate who can connect, who might be doing a bad job, but most still like him as a person (and you could also say that Obama is Reagan in 1984 if you want a comparative to the political atmosphere of today). Romney is a very very very weak candidate and I don't think there's anyway around that. Clinton was a bit weak going into the General (that was mainly due to his inexperience and not him as a candidate), but he had no problem in the Primaries and certainly not to the extent that Romney has been battered and bruised. Romney is an experienced Presidential candidate, Clinton wasn't. Romney isn't Clinton, and Obama certainly isn't H.W. Bush. 1992 and 2012 are not similar enough in my opinion if you look at the entire scope of 1992. I think 1984 and 2004 are better comparatives than 92.
|
|
|
Post by Rifles on Mar 23, 2012 16:21:48 GMT -5
Agree with spanelipants. This is looking more and more like 2004.
|
|
|
Post by masterplan200 on Mar 24, 2012 6:16:07 GMT -5
Does Ron Paul have even the slightest chance of winning now? Something tells me their 'We're all slaves' will continue.
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Mar 24, 2012 12:18:32 GMT -5
Does Ron Paul have even the slightest chance of winning now? Something tells me their 'We're all slaves' will continue. if that shitbag santorum has a bigger chance of winning, the answer is no.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Mar 24, 2012 12:24:07 GMT -5
Best parody yet. Oddly enough it makes me like the guy even more. "My dog is on the roof, my dog is on the roof." Brilliant. On a more serious note, you have realized Obama has flopped, too, right? Mr. Hope and Change from 2008 is very much different to Obama 2012. He's continued several of Bush's policies (vindicating his predecessor in the process), added to the deficit in 3 years more than Bush did in 8, never turned the economy around, led from behind on all important issues, and got involved in idiotic local ones, started an illegal war in Libya, despite blaming Bush for his legal actions in Iraq, was never the transparent figure he claimed he would be, involved himself in dirty politics in passing the unconstitutional and still vastly unpopular healthcare bill. The list goes on. But yeah, let's only focus on how Mitt changed positions over his lifetime, and not focus on how Obama's 2008 campaign differed so much from his four year presidency. Right. Score another one for the liberal lame stream media. He Hoped he could Change the nation for the better. He failed. Now the US Hopes we Change presidents in November......
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Mar 24, 2012 12:30:21 GMT -5
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...... Clinton and Romney are two different candidates. What Clinton had going for him, Romney doesn't: the ability to connect This race aligns much more with Kerry vs. Bush 2004 imo in terms of the type of candidates running. Romney IS Kerry. The guy who can't connect, the guy who seems stiff, the person who is seen as not an every man, and the guy who is a flip flopper. Obama seems more like the Bush mold of candidate who can connect, who might be doing a bad job, but most still like him as a person (and you could also say that Obama is Reagan in 1984 if you want a comparative to the political atmosphere of today). Romney is a very very very weak candidate and I don't think there's anyway around that. Clinton was a bit weak going into the General (that was mainly due to his inexperience and not him as a candidate), but he had no problem in the Primaries and certainly not to the extent that Romney has been battered and bruised. Romney is an experienced Presidential candidate, Clinton wasn't. Romney isn't Clinton, and Obama certainly isn't H.W. Bush. 1992 and 2012 are not similar enough in my opinion if you look at the entire scope of 1992. I think 1984 and 2004 are better comparatives than 92. As I've mentioned before, presidential campaigns don't matter, unless in the election is VERY close (see Bush/Gore). As Clinton said, "It's the economy, stupid." To put this into perspective, let's take this as a hypothetical: If the economy was strong in 1992, do you think Clinton would have beaten GHWB? I mean, Clinton was able to connect much more than GWHB after all.....But I think the resounding opinion is that no, Clinton would have lost. As we stand now, it may be a very close election where likeability comes into it. But that's too soon to say. Remember, 2004 was about national security, which the Republicans held a huge advantage with. 2012 is about the economy, which the Democrats have a huge disadvantage with. According to a CBS poll, 80% of Americans are not better off than they were 4 years ago. That's the question of which Ronald Reagan was able to pose and ultimately defeat Carter so resoundingly with in 1980. Yes, people would like to connect to their President, knowing they could have a beer with him. But in this climate, I think people would rather have a job in order to afford having that beer. Think about it.
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Mar 24, 2012 12:45:36 GMT -5
Clinton and Romney are two different candidates. What Clinton had going for him, Romney doesn't: the ability to connect This race aligns much more with Kerry vs. Bush 2004 imo in terms of the type of candidates running. Romney IS Kerry. The guy who can't connect, the guy who seems stiff, the person who is seen as not an every man, and the guy who is a flip flopper. Obama seems more like the Bush mold of candidate who can connect, who might be doing a bad job, but most still like him as a person (and you could also say that Obama is Reagan in 1984 if you want a comparative to the political atmosphere of today). Romney is a very very very weak candidate and I don't think there's anyway around that. Clinton was a bit weak going into the General (that was mainly due to his inexperience and not him as a candidate), but he had no problem in the Primaries and certainly not to the extent that Romney has been battered and bruised. Romney is an experienced Presidential candidate, Clinton wasn't. Romney isn't Clinton, and Obama certainly isn't H.W. Bush. 1992 and 2012 are not similar enough in my opinion if you look at the entire scope of 1992. I think 1984 and 2004 are better comparatives than 92. As I've mentioned before, presidential campaigns don't matter, unless in the election is VERY close (see Bush/Gore). As Clinton said, "It's the economy, stupid." To put this into perspective, let's take this as a hypothetical: If the economy was strong in 1992, do you think Clinton would have beaten GHWB? I mean, Clinton was able to connect much more than GWHB after all.....But I think the resounding opinion is that no, Clinton would have lost. As we stand now, it may be a very close election where likeability comes into it. But that's too soon to say. Remember, 2004 was about national security, which the Republicans held a huge advantage with. 2012 is about the economy, which the Democrats have a huge disadvantage with. According to a CBS poll, 80% of Americans are not better off than they were 4 years ago. That's the question of which Ronald Reagan was able to pose and ultimately defeat Carter so resoundingly with in 1980. Yes, people would like to connect to their President, knowing they could have a beer with him. But in this climate, I think people would rather have a job in order to afford having that beer. Think about it. NL4E, all I said was that this election was more of a caparison to 1984 and 2004, than 1992. I never said that it was indicator as to who was going to win or how big connect-ability is. So your hypothesis is moot to the actual point I was making. I still believe that 1984 is the best comparison in this election.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Mar 24, 2012 12:52:42 GMT -5
As I've mentioned before, presidential campaigns don't matter, unless in the election is VERY close (see Bush/Gore). As Clinton said, "It's the economy, stupid." To put this into perspective, let's take this as a hypothetical: If the economy was strong in 1992, do you think Clinton would have beaten GHWB? I mean, Clinton was able to connect much more than GWHB after all.....But I think the resounding opinion is that no, Clinton would have lost. As we stand now, it may be a very close election where likeability comes into it. But that's too soon to say. Remember, 2004 was about national security, which the Republicans held a huge advantage with. 2012 is about the economy, which the Democrats have a huge disadvantage with. According to a CBS poll, 80% of Americans are not better off than they were 4 years ago. That's the question of which Ronald Reagan was able to pose and ultimately defeat Carter so resoundingly with in 1980. Yes, people would like to connect to their President, knowing they could have a beer with him. But in this climate, I think people would rather have a job in order to afford having that beer. Think about it. NL4E, all I said was that this election was more of a caparison to 1984 and 2004, than 1992. I never said that it was indicator as to who was going to win or how big connect-ability is. So your hypothesis is moot to the actual point I was making. I still believe that 1984 is the best comparison in this election. If the economy continues to improve and unemployment drops further, then you're right about 1984. Obama *may* have gotten lucky with the timing of the improving economy. But it's too soon to suggest that, I think. My point above was countering your comparison to 2004. I do understand why you think Romney is like Kerry (although Romney isn't as dull nor does he come across as pretentious and elitist, to be fair); I get the sense that that probably won't matter in 2012 for reasons I've already discussed. In my opinion, it's either going to be analogous to 1984 or 1992 (with 1980 an outside possibility, but Obama has remained well above how far Carter sunk). Anyone expecting an Obama landslide like he got in 2008 vs. McCain is kidding themselves, though.
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Mar 25, 2012 11:57:50 GMT -5
you're right about that last sentence. i still think obama's going to win, but the republicans will vote for romney even when they don't want to. (and trust me, they don't.)
|
|
|
Post by RocketMan on Mar 27, 2012 10:32:11 GMT -5
i hate republicans. so no, my opionion couldn't change that much to like romney
|
|
|
Post by thuperthonic on Mar 27, 2012 11:58:30 GMT -5
The agenda of the American Empire remains the same, regardless of who wins (unless it's Ron Paul). The only reasons to vote for President are social issues.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Apr 10, 2012 15:24:43 GMT -5
Rick Santorum just suspended his campaign.
The nomination was practically over even with him still in it, but it's now a done deal (not officially yet as the delegates count hasn't been reached yet by Mitt, but nothing will stop him now).
Even with Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul, the sad cases, still wasting their money in their campaign effort, Mitt is the GOP nominee. Hurrah!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2012 12:49:22 GMT -5
still looks like a small obama victory is most likley especially if romney supporters like l4e don't bother to vote.
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Apr 17, 2012 14:39:26 GMT -5
this is going to be a close election, but i think obama's going to win. it won't be a landslide e.g. reagan v. mondale, but this is a very weak republican candidate. i don't say that as a knock on romney personally, but many republicans don't trust or like him. he is the republican john kerry, and i can't see him winning this election.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Apr 17, 2012 21:07:13 GMT -5
this is going to be a close election, but i think obama's going to win. it won't be a landslide e.g. reagan v. mondale, but this is a very weak republican candidate. i don't say that as a knock on romney personally, but many republicans don't trust or like him. he is the republican john kerry, and i can't see him winning this election. If you want to use the 2004 election as an analogy, you have to adjust for a few things: 1. Obama is running 5%-8% or so worse off than George W. Bush was at this time. It may seem slight, but in a close election it could prove critical. 2. While Romney's favorables are bad now, they only are so low due to the Primary. They will rise, especially with Republicans (see point 3 below). I think, ultimately, Romney is stronger than Kerry when it comes to appeal - he's much more enthusiastic and energized, and less prone to major gaffes. 3. The GOP base will rally around Romney. They are down on him now because it was a pick of Romney over several other Republican candidates. In November, it will be Romney against Obama. So while Romney may not have been the #1 pick of the deep conservatives out there, when it's a choice between Romney, Obama, or not voting (which would essentially be a choice for Obama), they'll turn out in order to dethrone the incumbent they so badly despise. 4. The number one issue of the electorate in 2012 is the economy. The number one issue of the electorate in 2004 was national security (was still the 9/11 aftermath). George Bush had a commanding lead with national security - the rally effect was still going strong, albeit starting to peter out, the anti-Iraq War brigade didn't even emerge yet, and hurricane Katrina was still a year away. Whereas now, Romney is seen trusted with the economy, while Obama's approvals on the issue are somewhere around the 30% mark. Sure, the economy is slightly improving, and if it does continue, and, more so, picks up pace, the better the chances are for Obama. But this (4) is a huge hole in the 2004 analogy. GWB had a commanding lead over the major issue of the electorate, whereas Obama has been seen flailing, failing, and coming up short. 5. Now that I think about it, 2004 wasn't really a surprise - it took us right back to an almost 50-50 split, which was, essentially, the result of the prior 2000 election. My point? While Bush fell from 90% down to around 54% from September 12, 2001 to circa April 2004, that had more to do with the rally effect petering out rather than any perceived (at that time) faults during his first term. Compare that to Obama who fell from ~70% (these are rough estimates based on memory, too lazy to look every one of them up) to as low as 39% (now back to the mid to up 40s) over the course of his 4 years, but his story was one of his own making (unpopular health care, failed/unproductive stimulus, poor economy, Libya, etc). Basically, my point here is that Bush was always divisive, hence the 2000 split, but people weren't intent on making a referendum against him on his first four years, but they are doing so on Obama's. Pretty important difference, if you ask me. Overall. Overall, I do see why people think the 2004 election is an analogy. But remember, no election is like any other. While Obama may win a close election resembling how Bush won his in 2004, and while some reasons may be the same, it won't tell the whole story. That being said, I think the differences outlined above also show that it could very easily go the other way. I just think it's too simplistic to look at obvious similarities and think that it will follow the 2004 election -there's too many key differences that could easily dictate otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Apr 17, 2012 22:43:53 GMT -5
1. NL4E, your "point 2" is b.s.. It is. Romney is just as likely as Kerry to have a gaff. How about "I don't care about the very poor". How about going to the South and not knowing how to speak down there, how about etch e sketch (I know that was Romney's campaign adviser. But in the end, the campaign is reflective of the candidate), and "I enjoy firing people". So I'm throwing out your point 2 because it just seems like you're being less objective there.
2. I only somewhat agree with your assessment. Remember Nixon vs. McGovern. Nixon the deeply despised incumbent against McGovern who was basically the default pick of the Democratic party. The Party does not always unite behind the candidate, even in the most extreme situations. And remember, under Nixon in his first term, inflation skyrocketed and the economy was fairly weak.
I think you're fooling yourself if you don't think that Romney and Kerry are the same candidate. If you're being even somewhat objective, I think the parallels between the two as candidates are fairly evident and extremely troubling if you're a Republican supporter.
In the end, I think the worse poll numbers to look at are the National Poll Numbers because the Nation doesn't decide who becomes President. The decision of who becomes President almost always comes down to the same 7-8 states. Forget about National numbers, they do not matter. Save for 7-8 states, the states that voted Republican in the last election will do so again. The states that voted Democrat in the last election will do so in this one.
It's really early to look at head to head polling, but I can not stress this enough, the women vote will count. If you look at Bush vs. Kerry, Bush not only won men by a heavy margin, but also drew near even when it came to women (this is usually a big voting block for democrats). It's a voting block that Romney is seriously hurting in, even with the Hilary Rosen controversy. If his margin with women voters even comes to close to holding up in certain states the way it is, he won't have a chance to win. Secondly, if you look at the key battleground states Obama is up in most polls +8 in Ohio, between +3-+6 in Pennsylvania, and +5 in Florida. These are states where Obama may outspend Romney by a good margin and we've already seen that Romney is no Santorum when it comes to having a message and being able to connect with people, nor is Reagan. He's more in the mold of John Kerry when it comes to having a plan, being able to explain to people his plan, and then trying to connect with voters on a personal level. It's difficult for him to accomplish all three.
People like to go with trends and statistics, but in the end I think that this election will be unique in its own right. Since 1948, only 1 president has won re-election with an unemployment rate above 7 (Ronald Reagan). However, no incumbent seeking re-election has ever lost with unemployment falling two consecutive years prior to the vote (the situation which Obama finds himself in).
I've said this before and I'll say it again, I think this election most compares with 1984. With 2004, 1992, and 1980 being other comparatives by which to "draw" on.
|
|
|
Post by Rifles on Apr 18, 2012 22:01:17 GMT -5
NL4E doesn't understand "objective". He lives every day on a slant.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Apr 19, 2012 9:57:18 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2012 12:42:19 GMT -5
are you gonna vote this time l4e?
and who do you want to be romneys vp pick?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2012 16:59:17 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2012 7:02:44 GMT -5
never would have had romney down as a hairdresser
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2012 9:03:39 GMT -5
now that beckham has advised obama his victory is assured.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on May 18, 2012 18:09:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by NYR on May 19, 2012 14:26:48 GMT -5
never thought you'd ever link to moveon.org.
|
|