GOP Nominee 2012 - Who Will It Be?, Pt. 4

[Irvine511]

that's a well framed speech if you're running against an incumbent. and that's the argument that Romney is trying to have. but it's predicated upon bad economic news.

first sentence is a bit sexist, though.

 

[BVS]

Sounds like a lot of change and a lot of hope.

Aren't we as Americans suppose to hate this?

 

[deep]

steal from the best (or a winning campaign)

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

And education, hard work, and living within our means are valued and rewarded.

Says the man who has more money than he knows what to do with, more money than most people will likely ever see in their lifetimes. I'm so sure he's never ever had any extravagant purchases and has ALWAYS lived within his means.

And poverty will be defeated, not with a government check, but with respect and achievement that is taught by parents, learned in school, and practiced in the workplace.

Well, guess what, Romney, my parents DID teach me respect and achievement, and lived both things in their jobs. I did learn it in school. I practice it in the workplace.

And yet...still not prosperous. Hm. Funny, that.

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

looks like Mr. Moneybags is leading Mr. Downgrade

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports?

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows Mitt Romney earning 49% of the vote, while President Obama attracts support from 44%. Three percent (3%) would vote for a third party candidate, while another four percent (4%) are undecided.

 

[Diemen]

looks like Mr. Moneybags is leading Mr. Downgrade

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports�

I realize you haven't actually said much about your thoughts on Romney, Mrs. G. Do you think he's the right man for the job?

 

[digitize]

looks like Mr. Moneybags is leading Mr. Downgrade

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports�

And every other recent poll has either a tie or Obama winning.

Also, considering yields on treasury bonds lately, all of the talk about the downgrade still seems rather silly.

 

[deep]

If Europe blows up or even slides harder, this could be similar to Oct 2008
that will give a huge assist to Romney

 

[BigMacPhisto]

Don't trust Rasmussen polls. They're the most right-leaning polls around according to Nate Silver of the FiveThirtyEight blog. They were far-and-away the most wrong back in 2010, predicting an even bigger GOP landslide.

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

And every other recent poll has either a tie or Obama winning.

Also, considering yields on treasury bonds lately, all of the talk about the downgrade still seems rather silly.

it changes daily/weekly

RCP has Obama +4.2 currently

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama

Obama job approval / disapproval is at +0.6, nearly half and half.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

I think the bigger point would be, the incumbent usually polls better at this point in the campaign. Instead we have a statistical tie. Obama could be in real trouble in Nov unless Romney screws up badly OR unless the economy somehow magically begins to improve overnight.

 

[BVS]

the incumbent usually polls better at this point in the campaign.

Once again your memory is failing you, or you just started paying attention. Bush was polling terrible prior to the 2004 election. Do you remember what happen there?

Keeping throwing, something might stick someday.

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

I realize you haven't actually said much about your thoughts on Romney, Mrs. G. Do you think he's the right man for the job?

I do. I feel he has the unique combination of executive level experience in the private and public sectors that we really need right now. He is a proven leader with a more than adequate track record and he is a proven "fixer". Also he has shown he is more than willing to work across the aisle and try to reach a decent compromise between opposing parties. His candidacy could be a gift, should we be willing to accept it.

Even Jimmy Carter has said he would be Okay with a Romney Presidency.

If we were talking about a GOP nominee of Santorum or Gingrich, then id be voting for Obama, as I've said before.

 

[deep]

that is a realistic or perhaps credible? appraisal
many independents will go Romney, I see this being a much more competitive contest than I did a few months back.

 

[Irvine511]

all maps, so far, show a much, much easier road to 270 for Obama than for Romney.

right now, after having at long last vanquished Rick Santorum (of all people), Romney is in a honeymoon period and is enjoying some good press now that the GOP/right wing echo chamber has aligned and coordinated and are supporting him (as opposed to the "anyone else, dear god, please anyone but Romney").

the comparison shopping for the small amount of undecided voters begins now, but won't really mean much until after London, and won't *really* mean much until after Labor Day.

as for Romney himself, considering it was the "job creators" and the GOP who destroyed the economy to begin with, i can't see rehiring them to destroy the economy even further.

the economy will continue to grow, modestly. unemployment will continue to fall, modestly. and, on the bright side, we're not Europe.

 

[deep]

I believe the stars were aligned for Obama in 2008

unfortunately for him there are less factors* to lead the independents his way.



*
Oct 2008 financial melt down,
Iraq War fiasco,
"only white men have been president"

 

[Irvine511]

agreed, 2008 was a perfect storm coming after the shocking horrors of the Bush years.

this will be a slog, like 2004.

 

[deep]

It bothers me to say it, but I believe race hurts Obama in 2012
but it helped him in 2008.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

I really don't know why anybody debates whether or not it's a close race this year. So far, it clearly isn't. Obama will win in an electoral landslide. There's only three things that can change that:

1) Double-dip recession (or at the very least, a continued trend of unemployment rising rather than dropping)

2) Major terrorist attack on US soil (And this could arguably help the President since it could be used as a rallying cry the way it helped bolster Bush back in 2001/2002)

3) Getting involved in an unpopular foreign war (extremely unlikely)


Basically, unless the economy goes to shit again and people start blaming the President, he's a lock to win. The demographic makeup of this country and the electoral map just do not support a Romney win at this point.

 

[U2DMfan]

Obama could be in real trouble in Nov unless Romney screws up badly OR unless the economy somehow magically begins to improve overnight.

I think it's going to be close barring a major event.

People tend to revise the history of the 2008 election.
McCain was in great position until the CDS/banking crisis in September.
I didn't look at the numbers* but from memory, I remember thinking it was a definite possibility that he could win.

Obama won, pretty much going away, because McCain fumbled his way through that financial crisis, including opposing the bailout...and the fact that everyone in the major media wanted him to win.

ETA (looked at some numbers)-*
McCain definitely had seized the lead in a few polls in early September.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/docs/2008_09_05topline.html
Just an indication of what I meant. Sept 5th-7th, 2008
USAToday/Gallup - likely voters - McCain was +10 Granted, that was an anomaly, most of the others had him up by 2-5 or so.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

No, McCain never had a shot in hell. He was running for the party with an exiting President whose approval ratings were the lowest since Hoover. He had no chance in hell of ever closing that gap between Obama's favorability ratings and Bush's awful approval ratings.

That one time he had a lead that you pointed out was because of the convention boost/Sarah Palin announcement. All it shows is that choosing Sarah was definitely a great "hail mary" and the only option he really had left at the end of the day. Obviously, once she was scrutinized, it may have even hurt his campaign, but I ultimately doubt it.

If you take away the Fox News polls, and especially, the Rasmussen ones. Romney has rarely ever held a lead over the President, and when he recently has, it's mostly because of the extra media attention for him being the presumed nominee. Frankly, unless the economy sinks deeper, I think Romney will only poll as good as he's doing now when he gets his post-convention boost. That's it.

 

[maycocksean]

I was skeptical that Obama would win in 2008. I'm even more skeptical that he'll win this year.

If he doesn't, I suppose we could do a lot worse than Romney. Truthfully I don't think we'll see much of a departure from the policies of the current administration. I agree 100% U2DMFan's analysis.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Yes, we all have rich parents who can bankroll our small businesses. Stay out of touch. Mitt. Especially college students whose parents are going broke paying for college or paying even partially for it.



Speaking during a campaign stop Friday, Mitt Romney encouraged students at Otterbein University in Ohio, to show enterprise by going into business -- with a little help from their parents, if necessary.

Romney cited the example of Jimmy John's owner Jimmy John Liautaud, who borrowed money from his father to start his successful sandwich franchise.

"We've always encouraged young people: Take a shot, go for it, take a risk, get the education, borrow money if you have to from your parents, start a business," Romney said.


Romney: Borrow Money From Your Parents - YouTube

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

that is a realistic or perhaps credible? appraisal
many independents will go Romney, I see this being a much more competitive contest than I did a few months back.

as an independent i will agree with you.

I think it's going to be close barring a major event.

People tend to revise the history of the 2008 election.
McCain was in great position until the CDS/banking crisis in September.
I didn't look at the numbers* but from memory, I remember thinking it was a definite possibility that he could win.

Obama won, pretty much going away, because McCain fumbled his way through that financial crisis, including opposing the bailout...and the fact that everyone in the major media wanted him to win.

ETA (looked at some numbers)-*
McCain definitely had seized the lead in a few polls in early September.
1
Just an indication of what I meant. Sept 5th-7th, 2008
USAToday/Gallup - likely voters - McCain was +10 Granted, that was an anomaly, most of the others had him up by 2-5 or so.

Yeah McCain had a nice convention bounce and Sarah Palin was a huge asset for him initially. Of course, she ended up being a gift for team Obama when she started doing the interviews. If you watch the movie 'game change' its amazing how it all played out (even if some of that was BS). I remember watching SP being interviewed and when they asked her which newspapers she liked...she wouldn't name one newspaper...i was thinking to myself "just say USAToday for goodness sakes!" In the movie, i think it was Woody Harrelson's' character, he's furious watching that interview and he's saying "just name one fkng newspaper"

I suspect it was a little bit of that and a lot of the financial crash that killed McCain. This time around, barring the unforeseen, i agree its going to be very competitive. And i dont think Romney will be picking any Palin's for VP. I would expect a much more thorough vetting process.

 

[INDY500]

Obama won, pretty much going away, because McCain fumbled his way through that financial crisis, including opposing the bailout

...and the fact that everyone in the major media wanted him to win.

I respect you for noticing what soooooo many here refuse to accept. It was so obvious to Hillary Clinton in the primaries that at one point she felt Fox News was the only news organization that was treating her fairly.

 

[U2DMfan]

Full disclosure, I was a supporter of hers, so it was painfully obvious to me. But I don't know why you would be so shocked. I've agreed with you on some things before. I'm an independent, conservative about a few things, liberal about a few more. Generally, I don't care about social issues and I think Reaganomics is a total sham, so I haven't supported a Republican in a long time. (Had to have been 2000 primaries - McCain).

That said, there was an overreaction from the PUMA's afterwards. And to be fair, the bias towards Obama (specifically CNN and MSNBC) in 2008 was NOTHING compared to FOX's bias towards Bush in 2004, which was the most egregious thing I've seen in "journalism" in my entire lifetime.

I do think FOX has improved though, honestly.
I mean...you get what you get with shows like Hannity and Fox and Friends, but their straight news objectivity is better than it used to be.

 

[INDY500]

That said, there was an overreaction from the PUMA's afterwards. And to be fair, the bias towards Obama (specifically CNN and MSNBC) in 2008 was NOTHING compared to FOX's bias towards Bush in 2004, which was the most egregious thing I've seen in "journalism" in my entire lifetime.

I do think FOX has improved though, honestly.
I mean...you get what you get with shows like Hannity and Fox and Friends, but their straight news objectivity is better than it used to be.

Jeez, during the 2000 and 2004 elections I watched MSNBC for election coverage. FNC wasn't even on my radar. Especially during the Bush/Gore story I thought MSNBC was excellent. Then everybody picked sides I guess.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

It was so obvious to Hillary Clinton in the primaries that at one point she felt Fox News was the only news organization that was treating her fairly.

Oh, yeah, Hilary didn't always get a fair shake in the media, either, no. And, I'll be fair here, neither did Sarah Palin. I remember, before the debate between Biden and Palin, the media kept harping on about how Biden had to "be nice" to Palin in the debate, that if he dared to question her on anything she said it might come off as an "attack" on her and somehow that would equal out to an "attack" on all women or something.

I wanted to just scream at the TV every time someone said that. 1, it's a debate. If you don't challenge each other, and essentially wind up agreeing, then...there's really no point in debating. Duh. He doesn't have to be rude, no, but if he disagrees with her, he has the right to say so. And vice versa. 2, she signed up for this. She knows politics is a tough business. If she's capable enough, she can handle her own in the debate. You don't need to treat her with kid gloves-if she's right on something, acknowledge that when it happens. If she's wrong, tell her so. You'd do that for a man, do it for a woman, too. 3, thanks for presuming all women think the same way about something. Naturally if someone challenged Sarah (or Hilary) I thought that person automatically hated all women, clearly .

The problem wasn't in these women being scrutinized and challenged on their viewpoints-they should be, if they're running for such important offices. The problem was how some people chose to go about that (and then some people felt the need to analyze their style like it was the E! network instead of a news channel, but that's a whole other topic of absurdity).

I remember watching SP being interviewed and when they asked her which newspapers she liked...she wouldn't name one newspaper...i was thinking to myself "just say USAToday for goodness sakes!" In the movie, i think it was Woody Harrelson's' character, he's furious watching that interview and he's saying "just name one fkng newspaper"

I thought the same thing. Hell, even mention of the local newspaper in her area would've been enough.

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

I thought the same thing. Hell, even mention of the local newspaper in her area would've been enough.

yes - clearly not her finest hour

 

[maycocksean]

I respect you for noticing what soooooo many here refuse to accept. It was so obvious to Hillary Clinton in the primaries that at one point she felt Fox News was the only news organization that was treating her fairly.

Who are the "so many here"?

I also felt much of the media was in the tank for Obama. The narrative was just too good to pass up. Obama made a much more interesting story than McCain.

 

[ladyfreckles]

I do think FOX has improved though, honestly.
I mean...you get what you get with shows like Hannity and Fox and Friends, but their straight news objectivity is better than it used to be.

It's too bad America's mainstream news media is terrible all around. I don't even bother with it anymore, I just read articles online. The bias and lack of actual facts is extremely depressing to me. What has journalism come to?