GOP Nominee 2012 - Who Will It Be?, Pt. 3 - Page 56 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-02-2012, 11:47 PM   #826
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 10:31 PM
A question for Romney supporters.

When is the last time an ex-governor was elected president without carrying the state he governed?

I don't know the answer by the way, it may never have happened. I only bring it up because "the most electable candidate" is trailing Obama in Massachusetts.
__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 02-03-2012, 12:59 AM   #827
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:31 PM
Reagan could have easily lost CA and still won both of his elections.

Keep in mind in 84 he won 49 states.

Romney or any GOP winning MA is not likely. It is quite an accomplishment that a Republican was able to win the MA Governorship. Romney has a more likely shot of winning NH, IOWA. If he can win FL, OH, PA, those are toss up states, he can win. MA was/is never considered a potential GOP pick up.
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 02-03-2012, 01:00 AM   #828
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,271
Local Time: 10:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs. Garrison View Post
Don't worry, i didnt take your words the wrong way and i certainly wasn't heated in my previous post. Just a "friendly" rant
It's cool . I know yours wasn't an angry rant, either.

Man, I wish people could talk this calmly in real life. We might actually get a lot more done.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Truth be told, there is really no way that anything will get fixed by this election - America is a completely politically divided country of ideologues and until some kind of major third-party shake-up, it will just be business as usual. Everything is politicized - just take a look at your judiciary - short of dictatorships and authoritarian states in the world, you won't find another jurisdiction whose judiciary is politicized to such an extent that you can predict Supreme Court decisions with probably a 99% accuracy. Sad state of affairs all around.
Yep. So long as the lobbyists and corporate bigwigs run everything, we're not going to move very much in any decent direction. I saw a thing on Colbert tonight about 22 of the biggest donors to PACs in general. Surprise, surprise, rich old white guys and corporations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
Obama, too, overrelies on invoking "the middle class"--as do most all American politicians, of both parties; that's a longstanding gripe of mine about our political culture--but he's either savvy enough about "optics," sincere enough about believing his economic policy's ability to improve everyone's lot longerm, or both, to grasp that most poor people want more than just assurances that a safety net will always be there and are quite willing to work hard for that.
I also like that bit Diemen shared, his analysis of Obama's leadership. Most of the "he'll save everyone" image was created by those around him. And as for his slogan, I do think he genuinely believes it, but...of course every politician's going to have an inspirational slogan. It won't get you much in the way of votes if you say, "Life's shit, but I'll do what I can", or whatever.

(Or maybe it would. Refreshing honesty, and all that )

Fully agreed on the "middle class" talk, too. Looking at that census data shared a couple pages back, and looking at my W-2, I am WELL below the poverty line according to that. Add in my mom's income and we're still probably in that section. Which is really depressing, and really should be talked about a hell of a lot more often.
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 02-03-2012, 01:24 AM   #829
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 05:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
When is the last time an ex-governor was elected president without carrying the state he governed?

I don't know the answer by the way, it may never have happened. I only bring it up because "the most electable candidate" is trailing Obama in Massachusetts.
It's happened twice: Polk lost TN but won the 1844 election. Wilson lost NJ when he won his second term in 1916.

Agreed with deep though, the likelihood of losing MA isn't in itself serious cause for doubting Romney's chances.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
of course every politician's going to have an inspirational slogan. It won't get you much in the way of votes if you say, "Life's shit, but I'll do what I can", or whatever.
That could make a great premise for a movie, though.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 02-03-2012, 09:34 AM   #830
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
2861U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: watching the Cubs
Posts: 4,255
Local Time: 11:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
I only bring it up because "the most electable candidate" is trailing Obama in Massachusetts.
True, but isn't Massachusetts one of the most liberal states in the country? From checking Wikipedia, it looks like their 160-member House is currently 127-33 Democrat and their 40-seat Senate is currently 36-4. Obama could lose in a landslide and still probably win there.

The point is that Romney puts many states in play that no other Republican does- OH, PA, NH, IA, WI, MI. He may not ultimately win most of those, but it's more states that Obama has to spend money to defend.
__________________
2861U2 is offline  
Old 02-03-2012, 09:40 AM   #831
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 11:31 PM
Very positive and unexpected jobs report out today. Stock market futures immediately jumped.

I'm sure Obama will get a lot of credit for this from the GOP. If you saddle him with job losses, then you saddle him with gains too.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 02-03-2012, 10:02 AM   #832
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 05:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Very positive and unexpected jobs report out today. Stock market futures immediately jumped.

I'm sure Obama will get a lot of credit for this from the GOP. If you saddle him with job losses, then you saddle him with gains too.
I just glossed over the press release. Employment Situation Summary

In January 243,000 new jobs were created. There have now been 23 straight months of job growth. Unemployment is down to 8.3 percent, the lowest it has been since February 2009 (with this trend continuing Obama might even be able to claim that unemployment is lower then when he became president.

And oh...
Quote:
Government employment changed little in January (though I read somewhere else that 14,000 public-sector jobs were lost in January - Popmartijn). Over the past 12 months, the sector has lost 276,000 jobs, with declines in local government; state government, excluding education; and the U.S. Postal Service.
So I think Obama will also get credit from the GOP for making government smaller.
__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 02-03-2012, 10:13 AM   #833
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
2861U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: watching the Cubs
Posts: 4,255
Local Time: 11:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Very positive and unexpected jobs report out today. Stock market futures immediately jumped.

I'm sure Obama will get a lot of credit for this from the GOP. If you saddle him with job losses, then you saddle him with gains too.
When over one million people give up hope last month, naturally the unemployment rate will fall. Does Obama get credit for this, or only the gain of 243,000?
__________________
2861U2 is offline  
Old 02-03-2012, 10:48 AM   #834
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 11:31 PM
at this rate, with Obama's centralized European-style socialism and soul crushing statism, perhaps we'll eventually get down to a positively European unemployment rate of 5.5% like they have in Germany.

Romney's argument just got tougher to make.

what are the Republicans going to do? they've done everything possible to crush public sector job growth in order to keep the unemployment rate higher than it needs to be under the guise of "deficit reduction" ... are there any tools left? do we need to manufacture another debt ceiling crisis?

time to panic?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-03-2012, 10:54 AM   #835
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 11:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2861U2 View Post
When over one million people give up hope last month, naturally the unemployment rate will fall.
Sure, if we accept your analysis of what's happening.

It's quite possible that we'll see an unemployment rate of under 8% before election day. You can spin it anyway you like, but optics matter.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 02-03-2012, 10:54 AM   #836
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 05:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2861U2 View Post
When over one million people give up hope last month, naturally the unemployment rate will fall. Does Obama get credit for this, or only the gain of 243,000?
What is your basis to spin that over one million people have given up hope last month?
Yes, the # of people not in the labour force has increased by over a million (seasonally adjusted), but the # of those who want a job (which is a subset of not in labour force) has decreased. And that includes those who were discouraged from looking for a job. So I don't see anything about people giving up hope.
__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 02-03-2012, 12:27 PM   #837
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 10:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs. Garrison



C'mon now, "i'm" out of touch because you disagree with me? Whats that about?
Sorry but it has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with you.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 02-03-2012, 12:44 PM   #838
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 05:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Popmartijn View Post
Yes, the # of people not in the labour force has increased by over a million (seasonally adjusted), but the # of those who want a job (which is a subset of not in labour force) has decreased. And that includes those who were discouraged from looking for a job. So I don't see anything about people giving up hope.
Also, the press release you linked points out that this is the first unemployment report to base its models on the 2010 census figures rather than 2000. I'd assume that's directly relevant to the jump in the number of people not seeking work.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 02-03-2012, 01:01 PM   #839
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 11:31 PM
it's spin from Drudge.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-03-2012, 01:29 PM   #840
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 05:31 AM
Boston Globe, Feb. 3
Quote:
Mitt Romney accused President Obama this week of ordering “religious organizations to violate their conscience,’’ referring to a White House decision that requires all health plans--even those covering employees at Catholic hospitals, charities, and colleges--to provide free birth control. But a review of Romney’s tenure as Massachusetts governor shows that he once took a similar step. In December 2005, Romney required all Massachusetts hospitals, including Catholic ones, to provide emergency contraception to rape victims, even though some Catholics view the morning-after pill as a form of abortion. He said he was acting on his legal counsel’s interpretation of a new state law--one passed by lawmakers despite his veto--but he also said that “in his heart of hearts,’’ he believed that rape victims should have access to emergency contraception.

Some Catholic leaders now point to inconsistency in Romney’s criticism of the president and characterize his new stance as politically expedient, even as they welcome it. “The initial injury to Catholic religious freedom came not from the Obama administration but from the Romney administration,’’ said C.J. Doyle, executive director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts. “President Obama’s plan certainly constitutes an assault on the constitutional rights of Catholics, but I’m not sure Governor Romney is in a position to assert that, given his own very mixed record on this.’’
Quote:
The series of events in 2005 involved several legal and political turns at a time when Romney was shifting from moderate positions on social issues he had taken when running for governor to prepare to run for president in a Republican Party that is far to the right of the Bay State electorate. Romney had angered reproductive rights advocates in July 2005 when he vetoed a bill to make the morning-after pill available over the counter at Massachusetts pharmacies and to require hospitals to make it available to rape victims, even though he had supported emergency contraception during his 2002 campaign for governor. He justified his veto in a Globe op-ed article in which he clearly accepted the view of some opponents of emergency contraception that it can be a form of abortion. Nonetheless, the Legislature overrode his veto. In December of that year, days before the law was to go into effect, Romney’s public health commissioner determined that a preexisting statute saying private hospitals could not be forced to provide abortions or contraception gave Catholic and other privately run hospitals the right to opt out of the new law on religious or moral grounds. That ruling sparked widespread criticism, including some by Romney’s lieutenant governor, Kerry Healey. Days later the Romney administration reversed course. His legal counsel concluded the new law did not provide any religious exemptions. Further confusing voters on his position, Romney said he supported the use of emergency contraception by rape victims. “My personal view, in my heart of hearts, is that people who are subject to rape should have the option of having emergency contraception or emergency contraception information,’’ he said.
__________________

__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
 

Tags
gop, republican

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com