Bam continues to lose ground on the Electoral Map, as Michigan moves to "toss-up." Between that and WI, he's dropped from 253 to 227 in the past 10 days. Mitt stays steady at 170.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html

More of the Change is on the way......

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/05/22/obamas-war-on-coal-hits-your-electric-bill/print#ixzz1vdALNXOI

JU-ICE;1178955 wrote:More of the Change is on the way......

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/05/22/obamas-war-on-coal-hits-your-electric-bill/print#ixzz1vdALNXOI

1. Can we get rid of the "War on (blank)". It is just a boiler plate statement. It just makes the author and editor less credible.
2. If it takes a few more dollars on my bill so I can breathe a little clearer air, then so be it.
3. Why are we assuming that the costs automatically get passed to consumers? Is it possible that costs can lead to lower overhead for a company, maybe a new look at how the company operates?
Instead, they get an easy out, blame Obama. No thought.

gut;1176488 wrote:The best thing for Obama's legacy would be to not get re-elected. That way he can still take credit for any future success (whether he had anything to do with it or not), and blame his successor (or continue to blame Bush) if things don't get better. Not to mention he can move-on from the distraction of POTUS to being a full-time celebrity.

Come on, nice analysis.
I honestly doubt the President wants to be more a celebrity than CINC.

ptown_trojans_1;1179020 wrote:1. Can we get rid of the "War on (blank)". It is just a boiler plate statement. It just makes the author and editor less credible.
2. If it takes a few more dollars on my bill so I can breathe a little clearer air, then so be it.
3. Why are we assuming that the costs automatically get passed to consumers? Is it possible that costs can lead to lower overhead for a company, maybe a new look at how the company operates?
Instead, they get an easy out, blame Obama. No thought.

"You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers." - Barry the Great in a January 2008 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle

believer;1179043 wrote:"You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers." - Barry the Great in a January 2008 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle

Oh, I'll admit, that's a damning quote. But, even with that, no matter the situation, a company should be able to adapt to market changes. Just saying, "Welp guess what, regulations suck, guess we will keep everything the same, damn efficiency, and pass the buck to the customer" is pretty weak.

I would guess if the company facing a technical or a closure of a coal mine due to nature, they would adapt their business practices.

Manhattan Buckeye;1176089 wrote:If Obama wins in a landslide it will change the definition of landslide. For Christ's sake even the NYT poll has him behind. What states that McCain win in '08 does anyone think might go Obama? What states that went for Obama might go to Romney?

NC, definitely. VA, likely unless all the useless bureaucrats in Fairfax, Alexandria, Arlington and Loudon vote twice. OH. Heck, the rest of the midwest is in play.

Obama landslide? I can't believe I read that.

I could see, in addition to NC, VA, OH, and MI:
Colorado
Nevada
New Mexico
Florida

If Obama holds those, and even loses a few, he wins with the same margin as 2008.
I doubt Mitt can take the west.

All that said, still early, and need to see who Romney picks as VP.

ptown_trojans_1;1179303 wrote:I could see, in addition to NC, VA, OH, and MI:
Colorado
Nevada
New Mexico
Florida

If Obama holds those, and even loses a few, he wins with the same margin as 2008.
I doubt Mitt can take the west.

All that said, still early, and need to see who Romney picks as VP.

That's still not a landslide. I believe the term you used was "landslide." Reagan won in landslides. Our current doofus in chief isn't winning most of the South and a large part of the Great Plains. Believer called you out on it, give him his due.

Can we get back on topic? Yes I'm still disgusted with the Obama administration. We made a poor choice in '08, he's been a terrible executive, I don't care about his race and I'm voting for Romney, even if he chooses Lucifer as his VEEP - which is an improvement over Biden.

I want to hear one, just one rational argument that Obama deserves re-election - spiking the football with "I killed Bin Laden" doesn't count. His administration has been one complete disaster.

Manhattan Buckeye;1179308 wrote:That's still not a landslide. I believe the term you used was "landslide." Reagan won in landslides. Our current doofus in chief isn't winning most of the South and a large part of the Great Plains. Believer called you out on it, give him his due.

Can we get back on topic? Yes I'm still disgusted with the Obama administration. We made a poor choice in '08, he's been a terrible executive, I don't care about his race and I'm voting for Romney, even if he chooses Lucifer as his VEEP - which is an improvement over Biden.

I want to hear one, just one rational argument that Obama deserves re-election - spiking the football with "I killed Bin Laden" doesn't count. His administration has been one complete disaster.

Sure, landslide, wrong term. How about, I could see a repeat of 2008 margin wise for Obama, but not for Romeny. If Romney wins, it will be close.

As to your last point.
To me, it is, as I have said many times, foreign policy. Obama simply has a better conceptual framework of how to conduct foreign policy than Romney. Obama is speaking about the intricacies of NATO, while Romney is penning Op-eds that says NATO can be used against China and North Korea.

On Afghanistan, I haven;t heard a peep about how Romney would take over the war. Would he support the 2014 timeframe, which is now 2013, or would he just keep saying, "I'll leave it to the commanders." Which, has no real depth to it.

I'm sure the unemployed and the millions who just don't want to work really care about how the US deals with other countries. :rolleyes:

"To me, it is, as I have said many times, foreign policy."

Is it that or your job? Be honest. I live in a foreign country and the ex-pats (many are DEMS given how many California and NY people are here) think his foreign policy is ridiculous. He's going to jack up taxes on the ex-pats if the rates go back to where they were - BTW this is a long and sad story. The United States is the only modern first world country to tax on top of tax on foreign income. And now we're going to be taxed dollar one at the highest rate - awesomeness.

No one cares about North Korea or Iran when their homes are being foreclosed and their college graduate kids will be living with them until age 35, at best. Obama simply had no clue how to deal with an economic struggle, he had no clue what it meant to hold down a real job - he doubled down on regulation and now we're stuck with terminally high unemployment and close to zero growth.

Four more years of this will be disastrous.

On Afghanistan, I haven;t heard a peep about how Romney would take over the war. Would he support the 2014 timeframe, which is now 2013, or would he just keep saying, "I'll leave it to the commanders." Which, has no real depth to it.

In all fairness, Romney does not have access to all the information that Obama has as commander in chief...so it probably is a little hard for him to speak to specifics.
Just so you understand what point I'm trying to get across...let's review BHO in campaign mode circa 2008....
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/8376/all-barack-obama-statements-come-expiration-date-all-them#

bleah!

^^^Agreed. It's amazing how quickly new Commanders in Chief change their minds and their rhetoric when the realities and truths of our foreign entanglements are revealed to them when they occupy the White House.

Obama is a prime example. During his campaign, he appealed to his anti-war base by slinging about the "I'll close GITMO immediately and yank our troops from the region in 18 months" mantra to help him get elected. By now we all know what really happened don't we?

I have a hunch that if or when Romney receives the same daily intelligence reports as Barry, he will do no worse and, quite frankly, will probably do far better than the current disaster of an administration currently running our foreign affairs.

It's no secret I have no respect for the Obama Administration. But despite my disappointment that Romney will be the Republican challenger, I'm more than ready to (a) fire the inept Narcissist in Chief and (b) give Romney a chance to demonstrate he's a better choice to be our nation's CEO.

^^^Agreed. It's amazing how quickly new Commanders in Chief change their minds and their rhetoric when the realities and truths of our foreign entanglements are revealed to them when they occupy the White House.

Obama is a prime example. During his campaign, he appealed to his anti-war base by slinging about the "I'll close GITMO immediately and yank our troops from the region in 18 months" mantra to help him get elected. By now we all know what really happened don't we?

I have a hunch that if or when Romney receives the same daily intelligence reports as Barry, he will do no worse and, quite frankly, will probably do far better than the current disaster of an administration currently running our foreign affairs.

It's no secret I have no respect for the Obama Administration. But despite my disappointment that Romney will be the Republican challenger, I'm more than ready to (a) fire the inept Narcissist in Chief and (b) give Romney a chance to demonstrate he's a better choice to be our nation's CEO.

I recall the shaky economy during Carter-Reagan race and remember the polls and news reports coming out at the time in the spring and summer of 1980. The MSM was trying to convince us that Carter's re-election was assured, that Reagan was too extreme to be electable, that electing Reagan meant almost certain war and/or foreign policy disaster, blah, bah, blah. Reagan won by landslide.

It's absurd to think Obama is a shoe-in this time as well. In fact I'm beside myself to even believe that despite the state of the economy that there are still plenty of Kool Aid drinkers out there.

Romney is no Reagan but at this point, I'm banking that he's a better option than what we have right now.

My sense is Romney wins in a landslide --- gaining back Florida, NC, OH, and picking up PA and even WI among others.

QuakerOats;1179733 wrote:My sense is Romney wins in a landslide --- gaining back Florida, NC, OH, and picking up PA and even WI among others.

No way Mitt Romney wins PA....

But...let me play Devil's Advocate here for a minute:

President Obama won 365 Electoral votes in 2008. Florida,Ohio,Virginia,and North Carolina account for 75 EC votes in 2012...so let's say the President loses all 4(the chances of that are zero),and he also loses New Hampshire and Wisconsin,which account for 14 EC votes in 2012,that still leaves the President with a grand total of......276 Electoral votes,which as we all know is 4 more than he needs to win.

So,President Obama could lose the following states and still win re-election:

Florida
Ohio
Virginia
North Carolina
New Hampshire
Wisconsin

Does that tell anyone how tough this is going to be for Mitt Romney??

Ty Webb;1179929 wrote:Does that tell anyone how tough this is going to be for Mitt Romney??

It tells me that if Obama squeaks out a re-election win by a scant 4 electoral votes, this is going to be more of a nail-biter for your Community Organizer in Chief than it will be tough going for Romney.

Manhattan Buckeye;1179322 wrote:"To me, it is, as I have said many times, foreign policy."

Is it that or your job? Be honest. I live in a foreign country and the ex-pats (many are DEMS given how many California and NY people are here) think his foreign policy is ridiculous. He's going to jack up taxes on the ex-pats if the rates go back to where they were - BTW this is a long and sad story. The United States is the only modern first world country to tax on top of tax on foreign income. And now we're going to be taxed dollar one at the highest rate - awesomeness.

No one cares about North Korea or Iran when their homes are being foreclosed and their college graduate kids will be living with them until age 35, at best. Obama simply had no clue how to deal with an economic struggle, he had no clue what it meant to hold down a real job - he doubled down on regulation and now we're stuck with terminally high unemployment and close to zero growth.

Four more years of this will be disastrous.

As Kennedy said, "Domestic policy can only defeat us; foreign policy can kill us."
Foreign policy is my job, yes, but it is the thing the Executive Branch has the most say and power. It is also the area where no one cares, until something bad happens. So, no news is good news, and it is the President's job to keep that way, or to manage the complex nature of relations. Given, the dynamic and interconnected world, foreign policy intersects more and more with the economy.
So, it is important. Just because it is not on the news all the time and not in the front of your mind does not mean it is not important.

HitsRus;1179332 wrote:In all fairness, Romney does not have access to all the information that Obama has as commander in chief...so it probably is a little hard for him to speak to specifics.
Just so you understand what point I'm trying to get across...let's review BHO in campaign mode circa 2008....
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/8376/all-barack-obama-statements-come-expiration-date-all-them#

bleah!

Yes, Romney does not have the same intelligence as Obama, but at least the guy can try and put out an Op-ed or speech that makes some coherent sense.

believer;1179940 wrote:It tells me that if Obama squeaks out a re-election win by a scant 4 electoral votes, this is going to be more of a nail-biter for your Community Organizer in Chief than it will be tough going for Romney.

Perhaps. I still think it comes down to the VP choice.

ptown_trojans_1;1179956 wrote:Perhaps. I still think it comes down to the VP choice.

Agreed. Which is why early polls and electoral map analyses mean squat at this point.

"Does that tell anyone how tough this is going to be for Mitt Romney??"

Should I fix this?

"Does that tell anyone how tough this is going to be for Americans with 4 more years and aftertaste of economic malaise?"

I have no idea how anyone can support the current administration. More debt from the U.S. in bond sales (which eventually the interest rate will become an issue), more personal debt from the generation that is supposed to become our next leaders in the form of student loans, failing (not falling, failing) asset values in real estate. We've had the worst 3 years since the Carter administration....why do people want 4 more of this (assuming, which I can reasonably do, that '12 will suck as much as '09-'11)?

Ty Webb;1179929 wrote:No way Mitt Romney wins PA....

But...let me play Devil's Advocate here for a minute:

President Obama won 365 Electoral votes in 2008. Florida,Ohio,Virginia,and North Carolina account for 75 EC votes in 2012...so let's say the President loses all 4(the chances of that are zero),and he also loses New Hampshire and Wisconsin,which account for 14 EC votes in 2012,that still leaves the President with a grand total of......276 Electoral votes,which as we all know is 4 more than he needs to win.

So,President Obama could lose the following states and still win re-election:

Florida
Ohio
Virginia
North Carolina
New Hampshire
Wisconsin

Does that tell anyone how tough this is going to be for Mitt Romney??

You forgot Indiana.

You're right though...Bam is sitting pretty. :rolleyes:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/obama_vs_romney_create_your_own_electoral_college_map.html

Manhattan Buckeye;1180053 wrote: We've had the worst 3 years since the Carter administration....why do people want 4 more of this (assuming, which I can reasonably do, that '12 will suck as much as '09-'11)?

Really sad part is, one of the - if not THE - weakest recoveries on record (when usually recoveries are more robust off of such deeper recessions). Sadder still is that's propped-up by a good $4T or so in higher deficit/"stimulus" spending. Although, to be fair, the data indicates to me a crowing out/hunkering down offset...meaning basically we've literally flushed about $4T down the toilet. Obama really couldn't piss away money to his constituents fast enough, and we won't get hardly squat out of it as far as lasting economic value creation.

Manhattan Buckeye;1180053 wrote:I have no idea how anyone can support the current administration.

It's perplexing to me as well but for whatever inexplicable reason, there are still plenty of people still lining up for the Kool Aid.

But then again, it's easy to see that Obama's support continues to come from die-hard leftists, blacks, unionists, and the fine folks living in and around the Beltway (who continue to enjoy their Federal pay and above-average benefits while the official private sector unemployment rates remain very high).

gut;1180293 wrote:Really sad part is, one of the - if not THE - weakest recoveries on record (when usually recoveries are more robust off of such deeper recessions).

There's a recovery going on? If there is, it looks very much like a recession to me.

Manhattan Buckeye;1180053 wrote:I have no idea how anyone can support the current administration.

It's perplexing to me as well but for whatever inexplicable reason, there are still plenty of people still lining up for the Kool Aid.

But then again, it's easy to see that Obama's support continues to come from die-hard leftists, blacks, unionists, and the fine folks living in and around the Beltway (who continue to enjoy their Federal pay and above-average benefits while the official private sector unemployment rates remain very high).

To be fair it isn't as if we had greater choices recently.

In 2000 a clinically insane person almost won the WH, and in '04 we had a guy who is now facing live in prison.