Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Is Mitt Romney Done For?

I hope so.

--------------

Just a month ago, Obama was reeling from a decrepit May jobs report and Mitt Romney was gaining in the polls.

Now, after a string of uninterrupted victories, starting with his endorsement of gay marriage, continuing with his executive order to halt deportation of DREAM Act-eligible immigrants and continuing with his massive Supreme Court victory over the Affordable Care Act, Obama is riding high. He maintains a 3.5-point margin over Romney in meaningless national polls, but has a much more noticeable lead in swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, where his Bain attack ads seem to be doing their job, and in Florida, where his immigration order gave him a massive bounce in the Hispanic population. If Obama wins all three of those states in November, he's set. If he wins even two of them, Romney's path to 270 becomes a hail-mary.

This is all despite the fact that the economy is just as bad now as it was last month. Romney's campaign strategy is built upon being the economic alternative to Obama. Unhappy with Obama's economy? Vote Notbama. By this logic, Romney should inching ever closer to the lead.

Instead, he's floundering. What happened? There's timing—the ACA ruling just happened to come down this week, as opposed to sometime in the spring, when it would have been swallowed up by the Republican primary—and then there's the fact that Obama holds office, which allows him the opportunity to make decisive calls like executive orders, whereas Romney can only make speeches and cut ads.

The problem is that Romney's Notbama strategy is predicated on Obama's failure, and there is no set of contingencies for when he succeeds. Romney has alternatives to Obama's (somewhat fictional) failed immigration performance, not his successful one; Romney has plenty to say for a president who wasted 1.5 years on a 2,000-page unconstitutional health care bill, not one who just became the only president in modern times to pass health care reform.

Romney's lack of specificity is a newer problem, one that seems to be superceding his old one of being a flip-flopper. In fact, as yesterday's scathing Wall Street Journal editorial points out, it's likely fear of being a flip-flopper that's causing Romney to refuse to make a stand on anything. When Romney was called upon to answer whether he would, as president, uphold Obama's immigration order or overturn it, Romney was unable to offer a response, even during a long speech to a Hispanic political group. This PoliticOlogist was working on a long rundown of Romney's immigration policy at the time, and waited with baited breath for the candidate to clarify that policy in his speech. Instead, the piece was shelved—it's simply impossible to divine what Romney thinks about immigration.

Romney's two-step on whether the individual mandate is a penalty or a tax—he's claimed both in under a week—is an even worse example. John Roberts gave Romney and the GOP a wide opening to attack Obama on a huge middle-class tax raise, and Romney fumbled. The WSJ rightly calls it an unforced error—Romney would have done better to have said nothing and let surrogates yell the word "tyranny / tax /tyranny" on as many cable shows as possible. Instead, he now looks confused, almost as if the man who first passed the template for the individual mandate doesn't understand the topic.

The absence of a response to Obama's successes has become Romney's response: he's poised himself as the candidate of choice in a race against a failing president, not a succeeding one. Rather than present a series of policies that he can promote as better than Obama's, he's simply presented himself as a semi-conservative void that will benefit from electoral circumstance: there are only two candidates to choose from, and one of has an economy around his neck. Game over.

by Anonymousreply 12612/09/2012

It's become clear that this isn't working. WSJ is merely the latest in a string of high-profile conservative figures and groups to call for a staff shake up. Romney has stuck with a close group of Massachusetts advisors like Andrea Saul and Erich Fehrnstrom—his single, "Etch-A-Sketch," is still playing on many stations—and he's about due for a turnover.

But nobody calling for the staff replacement seems to be able to articulate exactly what a new staff would do for Romney. As we saw from both Newt Gingrich's and Rick Perry's campaigns, there's a low ceiling for what a staff switch can accomplish: Rick Perry was overmatched with his first set of staffers, he was overmatched with his second. A new staff can mitigate a candidate's flaws, but they can't displace them. Unless Romney's new campaign staff comes with briefcases full of policy ideas, it's tough to imagine what they can do to craft better responses.

It's also possible that the worst is yet to come for Romney. While the high court's Obamacare decision fired up some of his base on his behalf, Romney's not doing much to fan the flames. This haplessness in the face of a skilled campaigner was exactly what primary voters feared when they went to the polls and, in primary after caucus, cast their vote for someone other than Romney. For all the noise that was made over whether conservatives would learn to love Romney, who had a history of not-so-conservative positions, polls showed Republican support of the nominee at 90% just a week after Santorum conceded. Clearly, Romney's conservative bona fides were less of concern to GOP primary voters than was his ability to beat Obama; it didn't really matter how conservative Romney's positions were, so long as they were strong enough to cut a path to the White House.

This was always the average Republican's worry: not that Romney would sell out conservatives, but that he would sell them out for nothing, exchanging his far-right positions for muddy centrist ones that would still come up short against a charismatic opponent. Four months out from the election, that appears to be exactly what's happening.

by Anonymousreply 107/05/2012

Romney's lie saturation campaign has not hit the airwaves yet. And you think there will be NO bad news at all between now and November? Think again.

by Anonymousreply 207/05/2012

OP, don't be fucking ridiculous. The election's four months away. There's no possible way to even BEGIN to determine if one candidate or the other is "done for" until AT MOST a couple of weeks beforehand.

by Anonymousreply 307/05/2012

I think it's a delicious irony that the high court's health care ruling ended up hurting Romney more than it did Obama. The GOP has been neutralized on this issue, which is really a huge deal since it's singularly responsible for their huge gains in 2010. That they're picking a nominee who can't ride the issue for all it's worth is just ... too good.

Of course, Obama supporters can't get too confident now that Romney is struggling again. Obama will have more "bad weeks" in terms of campaign narrative, the economy will remain tenuous and the race will probably stay pretty close.

But I think the potential is also increasing that Romney could be a complete wipe-out for the Republicans. The Bain Capital stuff, and the offshore bank accounts, and just the size and scope of his wealth and how he attained it are just now starting to settle in with independent voters. Romney's team also think they can coast by only criticizing Obama on the economy, without actually talking in specifics. That's not going to fly with people.

by Anonymousreply 407/05/2012

the GOPiggery is screaming and flailing like one of those slimy alien spider-things in John Carpenter's "The Thing."

You kill it, but its spooge just breeds more things.

by Anonymousreply 507/05/2012

I believe he is over.

I also think we might just get a brokered convention with Jeb Bush coming in to save the party.

by Anonymousreply 707/05/2012

The freepers and tinhats sure made a beeline for this thread.

by Anonymousreply 1007/05/2012

Romney has also done an about-face on the health care ruling: his chief spokesperson stated that Romney didn't believe the mandate should be called a tax. Now Romney says it is a tax, contradicting his own people (and himself by extension).

Well, he's on board with the GOP party line, but it's just another example of "just tell me what I need to say to get elected and I'll say it" syndrome.

Still, he's far from done for...yet.

by Anonymousreply 1107/05/2012

Threads like this depress the Hell out of me, because I remember right after Obama was elected in 2008, there was thread after thread about how "The Republican Party in permanent minority position," and "Republicans Will Never Again Control Congress."

Well, the 2010 mid-term elections taught us that was all bullshit, and if you think Romney is out of the game with a billion dollar war chest and a solid 40% of the voters in his pocket, you're in for a shock in November.

Remember, Romney went in and flat-out bought state after state in the primaries by outspending his opponents. Money does move the needle, and if you think the same thing won't happen in the general election you're delusional.

I sincerely hope Obama can fight him off, but any talk of Romney not being a contender is nonsense.

by Anonymousreply 1207/05/2012

If the election were held tomorrow, Obama would win. But there are still four more months to go, it's close, and a lot can happen.

by Anonymousreply 1407/05/2012

I don't know whether or not he's done for but I do know that someone had to pick up Ann Romney yesterday after she was found face down in a pool of her own stale red wine and vomit.

by Anonymousreply 1507/05/2012

I hope the article is correct, but I would not be overconfident.

For one thing, some of the people polled in swing states who say they will definitely vote may be turned away at the polls for not having the right ID or for having been purged without their knowledge.

And with electronic voting machines that can be manipulated without leaving a record, I would never underestimate the GOP's capacity for corruption.

by Anonymousreply 1607/05/2012

I don't trust the author because he spelled it "baited" breath.

by Anonymousreply 1807/05/2012

R17 Obama may be an unprincipled whore, but that is far preferable to a fascist.

by Anonymousreply 1907/05/2012

[quote]Threads like this depress the Hell out of me, because I remember right after Obama was elected in 2008, there was thread after thread about how "The Republican Party in permanent minority position," and "Republicans Will Never Again Control Congress."

Hon, you had to have drunken waaaaaaay too much Obama Kool-Aid if you *ever* thought that was true. I still remember Karl Rove saying the same thing after 9/11 about a supposed permanent Republican majority, and that didn't work out, either.

The truth about politics is that it's cyclical and much more prone to gyration when economic indicators are trending downward. Midterm elections that turn around control of one or both houses of Congress are routine in such situations, which is why the 2010 congressional results shouldn't have been at all a surprise. Will Romney win in November? I'd say it's unlikely but by no means impossible. Is it virtually guaranteed that the Republicans will at some point reclaim both the Oval Office and both sides of Congress (if not necessarily at the same time)? Yes.

by Anonymousreply 2107/05/2012

Yes R20, it's absolutely awful that someone who can afford to take care of his own health would rather take the risk and let every one else pay for his medical costs.

by Anonymousreply 2207/05/2012

Romney is such a flip-flopping moron no one will vote for him.

by Anonymousreply 2307/05/2012

[quote]R19, a law that says all US citizens are mandated to buy insurance from privately owned companies is fascist to the core.

1) Please attend college before posting again on DataLounge. Be sure to focus on classes that help you learn the *actual* definition of "fascism." "20th Century World History" or "Stalin, Hitler & Mussolini: BFFs in Fascism" would be great places to start.

2) Please spend at least a year reviewing American national taxation policies, as well as the sociopolitical history of the New Deal. Research at length the origins and cost of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security in particular.

Thanks!

-DataLounge

by Anonymousreply 2407/05/2012

R22, it was Obama himself who once said a mandate to buy health insurance was like "solving" the problem of homelessness by ordering everyone to buy a house.

by Anonymousreply 2507/05/2012

[quote]I also think we might just get a brokered convention with Jeb Bush coming in to save the party.

1. There is not going to be a brokered convention.

2. Why on earth would Jeb Bush be the chosen one when he's the brother of the man who crashed the economy a mere 4 years ago?

by Anonymousreply 2607/05/2012

I wonder how much power you think any president has? I don't think anyone could have handled the economy better than Obama after the raping and pillaging the Republicans did in 2008.

All this complaining about the economy doesn't take into account how much worse it could have been. Remember Argentina anyone?

Lots of whining about the economy. I know it's not great but I don't believe it's as bad as the media portrays it (that's the storyline!).

by Anonymousreply 2707/05/2012

Romney's a lying phony who has zero to offer but blame.

by Anonymousreply 2807/05/2012

R27, having to take over after George W. Bush is like having to take over after the Emperor Caligula, yes. Obama inherited a disaster.

However, there are many articles and books out there which document that he, and the rest of the Democrats, allowed Wall Street to set the terms of the economic recovery, bailed them out after they crashed the economy, didn't pass a big enough stimulus, and let a Wall Street guy like Timothy Geithner dictate economic policy.

We would be doing better had Obama not insisted on being so 'centrist' (more like right-wing). Obama is responsible for the Democrats losing control of the House of Representatives in 2010, as well. He allowed the Republicans to hi-jack the agenda in 2009 and turned the country from anti-Republican mood into an anti-Democratic mood.

by Anonymousreply 2907/05/2012

You're quite a simple person, aren't you r29?

by Anonymousreply 3007/05/2012

How so, R30?

I think my post reflects an in-depth knowledge of politics, economy, corporations and the realities of the way the world works.

Do you have a counter-argument you'd like to make, or are you just going to throw insults around?

by Anonymousreply 3107/05/2012

Romney is not "done for" but, yes, he's on track to lose at the moment. The Vanity Fair piece on Romney's personal offshore banking, Cayman Islands, tax dodging etc is one more piece this article does not mention. Obama's team has already sent out some preliminary attacks on this and, rest assured, there will be more.

by Anonymousreply 3207/05/2012

All of this "need to take a hard look at Obama" stuff - uh, yeah, I have. What would you have me do, vote for ROMNEY? Are you fucking insane?

by Anonymousreply 3307/05/2012

Mitt Romney's energy policy adviser is a huge oil billionaire and polluter. Mitt Romney would be worse than Bush.

by Anonymousreply 3407/05/2012

I agree with you, R35 - that's part of what I said at R29, but R30 got offended.

Obama and the Democrats are not the party of FDR - they have sold out to corporations and Wall Street and put their interests over that of the people.

While I always support the Democrats over the Republicans because the latter are worse, the Democrats are unfortunately only the lesser of 2 evils at this point in our history.

Compare the huge support Obama gets from Wall Street compared to that of FDR who wanted to overthrow him !!

What do you think that says?

by Anonymousreply 3607/05/2012

r35, formatted for clarity:

* The PATRIOT Act was renewed with no changes; endorsed by the Obama administration

* The illegal NSA wiretapping legislation that people were up-in-arms about with Bush is up for renewal. The Obama administration's position? Renew it with no changes or modifications.

* The transparent government President Obama was so passionate about? One example is the ACLU (of all organizations) - which has called this administration less transparent than that of Bush, has filed a lawsuit against the administration for more info on the infamous "kill lists", and questions why the Obama administration refuses to release information on Bush-era detainee abuses.

* How about those passionate speeches from President Obama about "Main Street"? Four years after the meltdown, how many Wall Street execs have gone to jail for their actions? None.

* The U.S. Treasury still owns 26% of GM shares. GM shares on Monday closed at $19.57; shares need to hit $53.00 for the government to break even. Taxpayers' true loss from the GM debacle is hovering around $35 billion. Will the Obama administration sell off its GM stake before Election Day? Heck no, because then they'd have to recognize the loss and they don't want voters finding that out before an election.

by Anonymousreply 3707/05/2012

And still, R25, the fact remains: you have [bold]NO FUCKING CLUE WHAT SO FUCKING-EVER[/bold] what the word "fascist" means.

Which on some level is deeply offensive to the tens of millions of people in Europe (and the US, and Russia) who lost their lives as victims of, and fighting against, real, honest-to-god, fascism.

So please do take R24's advice, and get 1/10th of a clue of how the world really works before you dump ignorant disinformation all over this board again.

TIA!

by Anonymousreply 3807/06/2012

Romney lacks the conviction to be a fascist. Obama, of course, lacks the insanity. Stop the silliness with use of this term. It leads to shrill, overwrought posts that leave readers unsure of your point, except that you are against fascism. Big deal.

Romney is not "done for" but already is demonstrating why he has failed in the past. He lacks a reason to run except for presumption. He is dishonest. He stands for nothing he will admit to openly (It's all about Mormonism, at heart. The rest is secondary.) He is a slime who will shift and shift, and therefore has no base.

Obama can lose because of circumstances. But Romney cannot win unless Obama stumbles. Repeat after me: Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin - Done.

by Anonymousreply 3907/06/2012

R38, we're actually already living in a Fascist society. Perhaps it's you who doesn't understand the definition of Fascism. Fascism doesn't mean living in a country where a dictator is murdering millions of people, but living in a society which has been taken over by the corporations and financial elite and which no longer has a government responsive to the needs of the people first and foremost.

by Anonymousreply 4007/06/2012

Another disappointing jobs report this morning. Only 80,000 jobs added. I don't know how much longer Obama can hold off Romney with this stagnating economy?

by Anonymousreply 4107/06/2012

Yes, if he were anyone but Mitt Romney we'd be concerned. But he is just such an empty suit.

by Anonymousreply 4207/06/2012

[quote]I don't know how much longer Obama can hold off Romney with this stagnating economy?

And pray tell, just what would Mitt do about it that we're not doing already?

by Anonymousreply 4307/06/2012

Mittens is coming to the Hamptons this weekend. I wondered why so many people out here have be acting and driving like lunatics, now I know. The Republicans are here.

Romney will attend fundraisers at Robald Perelman's place, Cliff Sobel's and one of the Koch brothers.

His campaign is keeping it reeeeeeal quiet. They don't want the heartlanders to know that good ole boy Mittens goes to the Hamptons and hangs out with east coast elites and rich Jews.

by Anonymousreply 4407/06/2012

Well, then, r44, I will just have to email every single news organization I can with that news.

Here's hoping someone looks into it.

by Anonymousreply 4507/06/2012

[quote]Fascism doesn't mean living in a country where a dictator is murdering millions of people, but living in a society which has been taken over by the corporations and financial elite and which no longer has a government responsive to the needs of the people first and foremost.

Well, then r40... almost EVERY FUCKING COUNTRY IS FASCIST! You are trying to take a term and rationalize it with your bias against a candidate (Obama). Sweetie, don't. Fascism is associate with Mussolini among the others. Don't try to generalize it to mean what you want it to mean. Every nation/society has an elite, whether it is communist, capitalist, mixed economy, socialist... whatever! And that elitist does have a lot more control over society and government than the population is willing to admit.

Save your rationalization of the term as associated with Obama for the idiots at FreeRepublic

by Anonymousreply 4607/06/2012

Four more months of no job growth, and I'm thinking it's the President who may be done for.

I have been trying to keep positive, but I just don't see Obama winning.

by Anonymousreply 4707/06/2012

Thanks, R39, you're a refreshingly sane and wise voice in here.

by Anonymousreply 4907/06/2012

R50, you might want to put down the pipe for a few minutes in between hits.

by Anonymousreply 5107/09/2012

I want to donate money to Obama but not sure if I can. In my profession, political donations are frowned upon because they can give people the impression that you're not impartial. I am still thinking of doing it. It's not like people can't find out my political affiliation and voting record with a little digging.

This is the first time I've ever wanted to give money to a candidate. I supported Hillary over Obama but I am not such a fool that I shot myself in the foot by refusing to support him. And I feel as disillusioned with the past four years as anyone but I cannot stand the thought of Romney becoming president. He will destroy what's left of this country.

If you're reading this and you feel like you're disgusted with the whole election and you want to sit it out, I implore you, don't. This is truly the most important election of this generation and will impact generations to come.

by Anonymousreply 5207/10/2012

[quote]His campaign is keeping it reeeeeeal quiet. They don't want the heartlanders to know that good ole boy Mittens goes to the Hamptons and hangs out with east coast elites and rich Jews.

just goes to show that greed trumps all. for a jew to be supporting a mormon, and being part of the party of crazy evangelicals, boggles my mind.

by Anonymousreply 5307/10/2012

Washington Post/ABC poll: Obama and Romney tied at 47% nationally

Among Registered Voters.

Poll conducted July 5-8th.

by Anonymousreply 5407/10/2012

And if he's tied after all the dismal economic news of late, he's going to win in November.

So suck it, freeper at R50/R54.

by Anonymousreply 5507/10/2012

Maybe if Romney won, his policies would bury the right in economic debt and ruin and make them all die out.

by Anonymousreply 5607/10/2012

Don't quit your day (or is it a night) job at 7-11 to become a political analyst R55 because you'll make even less.

Incumbents normally tail off as the campaign progresses as undecideds tend to disproportionately vote for the new candidate

by Anonymousreply 5707/10/2012

Keep hoping, R57.

by Anonymousreply 5807/10/2012

Didn't happen with John Kerry R57. And Mitt Romney may be one of the worst candidates ever.

by Anonymousreply 5907/10/2012

Obama is Bush-lite.

Romney is Bush-squared.

But if that one DL'er's post on a different thread fully describing Romney's Theocratic goals didn't convince the lot of you of how actually evil a Romney Administration would be, there's no hope.

by Anonymousreply 6007/10/2012

r60 - can you provide a link to that post?

TIA

by Anonymousreply 6107/10/2012

Regretfully but honestly many vote for a candidate simply on the "likability" factor. What do the polls say regarding this issue? I've seen it determine the winner sometimes more than any other factor.

by Anonymousreply 6207/10/2012

R62, most of the data so far gives Obama the edge over Romney on that score.

by Anonymousreply 6307/10/2012

Can you post that link on likability? Also reference, if possible, past elections? I wish people wouldn't vote for a President because "they like his smile." However I am a realist.

by Anonymousreply 6407/10/2012

R64, I'm going off-duty for the night, so I'm not planning to post any more polls right now.

However, with regard to the question of likability, charisma, emotional connection etc., I'd refer you to the book "The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation", by political scientist Drew Westen.

Its thesis is that in each Presidential election, it is the candidate with the most emotional connection to the population that usually wins.

by Anonymousreply 6507/10/2012

R53, In Vegas Sheldon Adelson, owner of Venetian and Palazzo, heavily supported Gingrich over Romney, in part because of the former's support of Israel. As an Orthodox Jew, he agrees with the Christian right on social issues. If Romney says the right things about Israel, many will be persuaded to vote for him.

by Anonymousreply 6607/12/2012

The Israelis indicated their support for Romney long ago. Adelson, through Las Vegas, knows Mormons to be anti-semitic liars so he tried backing Gingrich, but when that failed he continued to fund Gingrich, and possibly Santorum too, in order to prevent an alternative to Romney from coming forward.

by Anonymousreply 6707/12/2012

R67, Please clarify. Why are Mormons anti-Semitic? Typically many Orthodox Jews vote Republican, and that knowledge might change their mind. And why would Adelson spend his millions on Santorum? Are you saying he did NOT want an alternative to Romney? Actually I believe Ron Paul won the NV Republican Caucus, among charges of impropriety. Only some party loyalists go to either caucus; they know that they're going to get hit up for donations. Interesting living in a swing state. Regularly am paid to attend focus groups discussing the elections.

by Anonymousreply 6807/12/2012

[quote]Obama has fixed it so illegals can vote and not be questioned. Come November the Democrats will have pulled another Kennedy and easily carry Florida.

Hilarious! What are you smoking? Can you POSSIBLY EXPLAIN to us how someone who is not a citizen could possibly vote? This is the CLASSIC GOP lie! There are NO documented cases of illegal immigrant voter fraud, it's just your bizarre Republican wet dream!

by Anonymousreply 6907/12/2012

[quote]Do you just choose to ignore the shady parts of President Obama's first term because you think there's actually a substantive difference between Democrats and Republicans?

Most intelligent people have some issues with Obama. Most intelligent people pray for Obama to be reelected, if only so that he has more opportunities to nominate Supreme Court justices.

by Anonymousreply 7007/12/2012

And how is Obama going to steal Florida when it is run by a Republican Governor who is trying to purge the voter rolls of as many Democrats as he can?

by Anonymousreply 7107/12/2012

R40: I'll try to explain it to you [bold]VERY, VERY SLOWLY[/bold].

What you have described is termed, by the vast majority of political scientists, as a "plutocracy". And yes, we most definitely live at the present in a plutocracy. Plutocracy and fascism are different words for different sociopolitical organizations.

Or to put it another way: You're not the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland. You don't get to reinvent the definition of the word "fascist" just because you think it means something else.

Now go read a book on WWII or something, and let the adults talk.

by Anonymousreply 7207/12/2012

Some idiot on the web tried to give Mitt Romney an alibi for the zodiac killings on Feb. 5, 2012, long before his weirdness was news. All of which smells because he used a non-Zodiac murder to create the alibi. And Romney's people wouldn't have bothered to create such an alibi unless he was a real suspect on a police file somewhere.

by Anonymousreply 7307/12/2012

I think the BOOO's that Mitt Romney received at the NAACP, sealed his fate.

by Anonymousreply 7407/12/2012

Romney will get only the richest and needless to litter his administration.

by Anonymousreply 7507/12/2012

He is simply EVERY SINGLE THING that is wrong with the US right now.

by Anonymousreply 7607/12/2012

What r76 said.

by Anonymousreply 7707/12/2012

Romney can be defeated. We have to really work hard, contribute to Obama if we can, and just pull it out.

He's not my main concern. Rove has Plan A, which is to get Romney and a "permanent" Republican majority" elected to Congress; or Plan B: Insuring there's a firewall to stop Obama if Romney loses, by electing a "Permanent Republican majority" to both houses of Congress, or Plan C which is a "permanent Republican majority" in the House and chipping away at the Senate.

Plan A is terrifying to contemplate. Plan B or C would really damage our economy and create a lot of problems for us.

Everyone is so focussed on the Presidential they are losing sight of the Congressional elections. The other problem is that in states where the election is close, it is a lot easier to steal. That is also part of the Rove plan.

I mean, people have to ask themselves "WHY?" If you are on the up & up, and you really have a good product to sell to the American people, why try to suppress the votes? Why keep your donors a secret?

How does a Party and all the candidates who carry it's standard, justify being exclusionary and dishonest?

How can the American people take seriously anyone who insists they have the interests of the middle class uppermost in their minds, when they insist that the middle class subsidize tax cuts for the top 2% and force out government to borrow money from China to pay for the tax cuts?

They say the are "worried about deficits" but have done nothing to resolve the deficit. They have resisted every single proposal that would help people put people to work, or educate them, or generate revenue.

They are opppressive vile people. They have not a single damned thing to offer the general public and they never have. Haven't we had enough? A Romney Presidency with a Republican majority in Congress would be worse than Hurrican Katrina was for NOLA.

Is Mitt Romeny done for? We can make it happen. Yes. We can.

by Anonymousreply 7807/13/2012

R78, there's no way to achieve a Permanent Republican Majority anywhere - not in the White House, the Senate or the House. They don't have the numbers to do that.

This isn't the 1980's where the Republicans had support across the country and could win 49 out of 50 states. Their demographic support has shrunk dramatically since then and there are whole areas of the country which are out of bounds to them.

It's certainly still possible to steal and election or two, or to do well in certain regions, but the last attempt to establish a Permanent Republican Majority ended after only a few years.

by Anonymousreply 7907/13/2012

R79, I wish I could agree with you.

But the fact that American voters watched Bush steal two elections and spend eight years destroying this country and people like Boehner and Cantor and Mitch McConnell can still be elected tells me not to underestimate the sheer stupidity of too many voters.

Not to mention how easy it is now to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters and manipulate the count everywhere from rural counties in Wisconsin to major metropolitan areas in swing states.

So it certainly seems to me that Romney is toast right now, but not only can anything happen between now and the election, anything can happen in the polling places and in the voting machines on election day.

by Anonymousreply 8007/13/2012

I heard last night that Eric Cantor is facing a serious challenge and could lose his seat! He's a hateful shit and he could be the next Speaker of the House and defeat Boehner for the job. He's the Tea Party's whore and a rotten pig.

We need to make sure Claire McGaskill, Elizaveth Warren are in the Senate next year, and we have to get rid of Eric Cantor.

Mitt's not done for, but he's definitely been bloodied this week. He's in trouble.

by Anonymousreply 8107/14/2012

Well, R82, all you did was bleet at R33. Your homophobia is pointless. And why assume, with the infestation of straights and trolls on the site, that the dumber posts here are all gay people. You're a real sweet one.

Once more, Obama is in good shape, despite the economy. Romney at heart is an unlikable elitist who cannot connect with people. He is arrogant and as recent as yesterday was using terrible language about why he is not releasing his tax returns beyond 2010 and, eventually, 2011. His explanations about Bain, likewise, are exactly what will turn people off once he starts campaigning as the nominee and people are really listening. He will make Obama's tendency to preach and hector (when he forgets his oratorical skills) look like constant brilliance.

People will forgive Obama for the economy. They will not trust Romney's sincerity or ability. They will smell Bush returning and Big Business sucking up the last scraps of any hope for prosperity. Romney's message is fatally flawed. If her tries to change it he will look insincere, which is his other huge con.

Quit looking at national polls, whether they are among registered or likely voters. They mean nothing except gross indications of general trends. Obama is tracking very well in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and now Virginia. He is doing well in Florida, and if he wins Florida he wins the election. He is polling okay in Michigan, and it is hard to project Romney pulling ahead in the fall given the current trends. Obama is fine in New Mexico and Nevada, and is firm across the Pacific Coast and New England and the Middle Atlantic, except in New Hampshire. Obama may lose Iowa, probably will lose North Carolina, will lose Indiana, and can lose Florida. He can drop New Hampshire, too. With those states gone from his 2008 winnings, he still has a good majority in the electoral college.

The election is his to lose. The American people, in this year, are not going to turn to Romney. He is a place holder who landed in the spot simply to ward off the Tea Party nuts taking control of the party. The Republicans will have given up the presidential hopes by the end of September and will be aiming at Congress, hoping for the Senate. Their chances are not that great there.

And if Hillary Clinton runs in 2016 she will win in a landslide. Period.

by Anonymousreply 8407/14/2012

r61, I searched, but couldn't find it.

I'm sorry.

It basically detailed how Romney believes he is the Chosen One to fulfill the Mormon "prophecy" to have Mormon rule of the United States.

That he will place Mormons in every important position.

by Anonymousreply 8507/14/2012

R84 - generally I agree, though Michigan does concern me. I think it will be close.

Obama would win if the election were tomorrow, but things can change.

by Anonymousreply 8607/14/2012

Don't let the election of Michigan's new Republican governor mislead you. The current governor was elected with the help of a lot of independents and disgusted Dems who couldn't support the flame throwing Liberal who was the Dem nominee. He's also too moderate for the Tea Party people.

Michigan will go for Obama. The state is very much tied to the automobile industry. The 2008crisis hit Michigan about two or three years before it hit the rest of the country.

There was devastation in many bedroom communities where mid-level auto executives lost everything. Massive foreclosures. Lots of destruction.

The fact that Obama literally saved the auto industry and hundreds of thousands of jobs counts for a lot here, and not just with Labor unions. The Tea Party is strong here too, but they hate Romney. Ron Paul would have gotten Libertarian support in Michigan, Santorum would have done well.

by Anonymousreply 8707/14/2012

Those "disgusted Dems" who couldn't vote for a real progressive should be boiled in oil. Stupid, bigoted, antigay frauds.

by Anonymousreply 8907/14/2012

A billion dollars says my guy's in.

by Anonymousreply 9007/14/2012

Obama has 281.

by Anonymousreply 9107/15/2012

Obama already has a lock on 270 electoral votes. The polls don't mean nothing. It's the Electoral College that counts, and Obama can only go UP from this point. He's already won.

He hasn't gone down in the states where he has lock on 270 in over 2 years. He won't go down in the polls anytime soon.

He will be the first president in recent history to be re-elected with a tanked economy and having nothing going for him.

Romeny = Michael Dukakis of the Republican Set.

by Anonymousreply 9207/15/2012

I get sick of hearing that dumb GOP talking point that Obama can't run on his record. Yes he can. He got Osama and other major terrorists, he saved the auto industry, he kept the US economy from being even worse than it is, ended DADT, is ending DOMA and got the Supreme Court to uphold his biggest piece of legislation The Affordable Care Act. All done in spite of having to fight a hostile, obstructionist Republican party hellbent on his complete destruction. I'd say that's a pretty impressive record in spite of the bad economy.

by Anonymousreply 9307/15/2012

[quote]Obama already has a lock on 270 electoral votes.

I think it's important not to assume Obama has a 'lock' on 270. He certainly has a very good chance of being re-elected, and he does retain a 50-70 EV lead over Romney in most projections.

But let's remember that even trustworthy sources like Nate Silver of the NYT are not willing to give Obama much above a 65% chance of being re-elected. Those are decent odds, but they're not the same as having an 80% chance of re-election.

The Electoral College has dramatically shrunk for the Republicans since 1988. That was the last time a Republican won by a large margin. In fact, no Republican has gotten over 300 EV since 1988. By contrast, the Democrats have done so 3 times within the last 20 years - in 1992, 1996 & 2008.

However, let's remember that the DNC themselves are still being cautious, and still fear possible economic indicators becoming worse over the next few months. And as always, one also has to beware of electoral fraud. As Bill Clinton said recently, he has never seen as many efforts during his lifetime to try and engage in voter ID suppression, and suppression of racial minorities.

by Anonymousreply 9407/15/2012

You rock, R93.

May your message be heard.

by Anonymousreply 9507/15/2012

I have no dog in the fight here. I am not American, so I'm reading this thread without any partisan blinders, but I have two questions:

1. How on earth is the requirement for health insurance 'fascist', when, I assume, most if not all states require motor insurance. Definition of fascism from Wikipedia:

Fascism ( /ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a radical authoritarian nationalist political ideology.[1][2] Fascists seek elevation of their nation based on commitment to an organic national community where its individuals are united together as one people in national identity by suprapersonal connections of ancestry and culture through a totalitarian state that seeks the mass mobilization of a nation through discipline, indoctrination, physical training, and eugenics.[3][4] Fascism seeks to eradicate perceived foreign influences that are deemed to be causing degeneration of the nation or of not fitting into the national culture.

2. How is the NSA wiretapping 'illegal' if it has been passed by government, and I assume not struck down by the courts?

Anyone?

by Anonymousreply 9607/15/2012

Poll Troll, you should stick to what you know, which is making life easy for those of us who would otherwise have to scour RCP for the daily polls we're interested in. Nobody gives a shit about your superficial 'analysis' as to the current state of the race. You're not all that, and your insights aren't really all that sharp, either.

I'm just letting you know because it seems that you've taken to signing your prognostications as the '2012 Poll Troll.' You're making yourself look kind of dumb to anyone who actually knows and understands politics.

by Anonymousreply 9707/15/2012

Here's a link to an elecotral map. Shows Obama as having 221 EVs and Mittens having 181. To win the presidency, one must get 270 EVs.

Note the states that are toss-ups or "leaning" Obama. Ohio is too close to call for either candidate, as is Florida. I am counting on independent voters to turn out for Obama after realizing the dangers of a Mormon becoming president.

I asked my good friend last night if she would vote for Obama. She voted for him in 2008 but now hates him, thinks that he made a lot of promises he has yet to keep. A few months ago, she said she would rather sit out this election instead of voting for him again. Last night, she told me she's too afraid of Romney becoming president and will "hold my nose and vote for Obama."

Not ideal, I know. But she will vote, I know it. I hope a lot of voters take this same approach.

by Anonymousreply 9807/15/2012

R97, stop being such a drama queen.

I don't JUST have to report polls. If you've read some of my previous threads you would know I WORK IN POLITICS as well. I know more about it than you likely ever will and can go head to head with you anytime you want, bitch.

I can post on other political subjects all I want, and did so long before becoming the '2012 Poll Troll'. I've been posting here since 2003 on a whole variety of topics.

Now, what specifically is it that you found lacking in my analysis above? I pointed out some numbers, statistics and historical patterns that the average person is unlikely to know.

For example, I doubt the average person knows that the Republicans haven't won over 300 EV since 1988, but that the Democrats have done so 3 times in the past 20 years. That is a vital part of the analysis.

by Anonymousreply 9907/15/2012

Actually, Nate's model has Obama with an 80 percent chance of winning if the election were held now. The chances of him winning in Nov are lower because things can happen between now and November.

I actually think Nate is giving Romney a little more strength than he's due because of his inclusion of Gallup and Ras polls. Take those out, and Obama is sitting pretty now.

But things can change.

by Anonymousreply 10007/15/2012

R100, I would like to add the following to your analysis:

1. You are correct that Nate has a 'Now-Cast' and a 'Nov-6 Cast'. But the one for November is the most important and it is always best to be cautious. The DNC and Obama don't want people getting overconfident anyway, otherwise voters can become complacent and think it's 'in the bag'.

2. Yes, Nate includes Gallup and Rasmussen polls, but so do the majority of electoral map projections by most of the major news sites, although there are a couple of amateur political sites such as ElectoralVote.com who do not.

3. As Nate explains himself, he already knows that different pollsters have different In-House biases towards one party or another. He always treats Rasmussen with skepticism, and has pointed out that Gallup appears to be leaning towards Romney this year. However, it is important to remember that the reverse is also true - pollsters like Bloomberg, Pew and PPP appear to be overestimating Obama's support this year. Therefore, his job is to calculate projections based on all of these factors.

4. Nate Silver's Electoral College projection actually comes about in the middle compared to other sites - there are some that give Obama a bigger lead, but there are some such as RCP that someone linked above, which give Obama a smaller advantage.

by Anonymousreply 10107/15/2012

[quote]Now, what specifically is it that you found lacking in my analysis above?

As I tried to point out in my signature: It's not that you're wrong, it's just that you're not adding any value with your non-insights.

I guess it wouldn't matter, if you weren't signing all your lame posts as '2012 Poll Troll', as though you've built up some sort of credibility or brand.

You're not saying much, that's my point.

by Anonymousreply 10307/15/2012

[quote]You're not saying much, that's my point.

Nor have you.

And you sound very silly.

I notice you didn't rebut anything I wrote above, and you also miss the other point: I am allowed to post whatever I want just like anyone else here. I sign my political posts '2012 Poll Troll' in order to maintain a consistency between what I have posted on various interrelated polling and political topics in case someone wants to follow my train of thought.

Incidentally, if you look on other threads, some people have told me they like me to give my analysis!

Not sure why you have turned yourself into a Board Monitor.

by Anonymousreply 10407/15/2012

"in case someone wants to follow my train of thought."

I think this is why he's laughing at you. Girl, nobody cares about your train of thought.

by Anonymousreply 10607/15/2012

Poll troll,

I agree that it is best to be cautious, and I think it wise to consider both the Nowcast and the Nov 6 cast. That said, I think it is Obama's to lose. I don't think Romney can win this without help from some event or a najor stumble - Jeramiah Wright level - by Obama.

by Anonymousreply 10707/15/2012

[quote]Anyway, I've said my peace.

Oh, dear.

How embarrassing.

by Anonymousreply 10807/15/2012

I like you, Poll Troll. Ignore the haters.

by Anonymousreply 10907/15/2012

Thanks, R109. Most of the feedback I get here is positive, so I think it's just a few isolated, bitchy individuals.

by Anonymousreply 11007/15/2012

Let there be poles...er...polls!

by Anonymousreply 11107/15/2012

Poll Troll knows this, given his background, but a lot of people out there are unaware of thenew crop of fake, shady polls that announce "results" from time to time. These are polls that are initiated and sponsored by the Koch brothers and by Rove and his minions.

These polls are designed to make their candidate look stronger than he is. A lot of these polls have flawwed polling instruments, they are really push polls or persuasion polls, designed to "help" an undecided voter make a decision.

by Anonymousreply 11207/15/2012

God, r105...your pussy really stinks!

by Anonymousreply 11307/15/2012

bump

by Anonymousreply 11407/18/2012

At least if Romney wins we will get to admire his five strapping sons for the next four years.

by Anonymousreply 11507/18/2012

I like Poll Troll too

by Anonymousreply 11607/18/2012

Speaking of Nate Silver ... as someone whose wildly attracted to geeks, nerds (and dorks), he's quite the hottie!

by Anonymousreply 11707/18/2012

Yes, Nate is a very cute Jewish boy, R117 - and smart too!

by Anonymousreply 11807/18/2012

He also pings my wildly anemic gaydar

by Anonymousreply 11907/18/2012

Bump for r93. PREACH!

by Anonymousreply 12007/18/2012

Isn't it ironic...

That this post was written while Obama was spending campaign cash at a record rate, trying to make this story relevant

Yet the polls actually continue to tighten (as shown by the trend today in both the NYT and Fox polls)

It's the economy stupid

Rachael Mad-cow said that Romney's campaign was a mess and he was through

What is she going to say tonight now that the polls continue to go the other way?

Guess it doesn't matter since her viewers are not a discerning group. I'm guessing she will just ignore them

by Anonymousreply 12107/18/2012

R121, you just posted that on the other thread.

I'll repeat here what I said there.

The last CBS/NYT poll had Romney ahead by (+3). Now Romney is only ahead by (+1), so he has LOST support with that pollster.

And the FOX poll showing Obama ahead by (+4) today is only 1 point below his previous score of (+5).

=> a wash

by Anonymousreply 12207/18/2012

Good god, R103/105 is an insufferable twat.

by Anonymousreply 12307/18/2012

He's a lying Cunting Liar

by Anonymousreply 12407/18/2012

Answer: "HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. yes"

by Anonymousreply 12512/09/2012

Mitt who?

by Anonymousreply 12612/09/2012
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.