QuakerOats;1108350 wrote:The numbers say something completely different. obama got 53% last time and now he will lose some votes from Catholics, Jews and independents, among others. Yet, he has nowhere to go to pick up votes to offset the losses, nowhere. No one who voted against him the last time is now going to vote for him - that is preposterous; so, given the votes he will lose and not be able to replace, he will be lucky to get to 45%.

It's over.

I see what you did here...

You literally took Gut's personally thought out and coherent response to my original post, moved statements around in a different order/highlighted some key words/stats he used, peppered in some ridiculously baseless comment that anyone bothering to spend 2 minutes googling can counter, and webster.com'ed the word 'preposterous' to add in for effect. Well done, sir.

Honestly, people can think what they want and do what they want on this board, but I like to occasionally stop by, ask a couple questions, engage in some friendly debate and, imagine this, maybe learn a little something from those that have different viewpoints than I. I gather you're probably not here for that, but to each his own.

If it wouldn't be too much of a hassle, I'd like to know how you arrived at 45% in your own words. Not in a summary of someone else's post. Just YOU. In your own words. Not some compiling of catchphrases with a percentage at the end of it. And I'm not joking, I'm honestly curious and want to know how you arrived at the number and what evidence leads you to this conclusion. PM me if you wish.

dtdtim;1108436 wrote:Let's prioritize here: The Jewish vote has the possibility to make a major difference in exactly one state: Florida. This may come as a shock but the vast majority of usually democratic Jewish voters reside in states that are not dependent on the Jewish vote to remain blue (New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, California).

How is it possible that ANYONE is more concerned with where the Jewish vote is going than the Latino vote? One of them is actually going to make a difference where it matters (Florida, New Mexico, North Carolina, Arizona, Colorado)...it is NOT Jews.

The simple fact of the matter is Obama is going to lose votes in EVERY demographic, some more than others but, yes, even in the African American demographic. That should be obvious, I don't know how it can be debated. The only thing that might save them is if those people stay home instead of switching their vote to the Repub.

dtdtim;1108433 wrote:And what, exactly, has given you the impression that what's happening in the party right now is going to improve immediately

I didn't say immediately. But there won't be 4 Republican candidates on the POTUS ballot and the party will have plenty of time to unify it's message. Even the Obama side is picking and choosing it's battles right now because they don't want to start forming a platform that could be ineffective (or worse) against different candidates. For similar reasons, Romney is walking a fine line beginning his campaign against Obama while he still has to win the nomination.

People are really ignoring/downplaying the incredible mobilization of first-time and disenfranchised voters, and widespread enthusiasm for his campaign, that swept Obama AND Democrats into the White House and Congress in 2008. Not only is that all but gone, but you can see it swinging the other way back to Repubs. People have already forgotten the 2010 elections where Repubs made unimaginable gains. Those 2010 elections were a huge referendum on Obama and the economy. Guess what? Not much has changed on the economy, and when people's wallets are really hurting social and other pet issues truly take a backseat when they go to pull the lever.

Unless Rush Limbaugh is the VP, Obama's only hope is that most of the votes he's lost stay home. But anecdotally I'm seeing a lot of people changing their vote.

gut;1108451 wrote:The simple fact of the matter is Obama is going to lose votes in EVERY demographic, some more than others but, yes, even in the African American demographic. That should be obvious, I don't know how it can be debated. The only thing that might save them is if those people stay home instead of switching their vote to the Repub.

Voter turnout is going to be down, I agree. Who this benefits remains to be seen but sluggish turnout almost always benefits the Republicans.

The wildcard in play is how each campaign's GOTV effort/energizing reacts to the other campaign's same effort. Romney can poll very well in FL, OH, VA, and NC but he needs the Latino vote in Nevada, Colorado, and Florida to win. Obama is in the same boat. That's why I think it's more important.

dtdtim;1108432 wrote: Although polling at this juncture of the campaign is suspect at best and atrocious at worst, this statement is absurd if you believe what the polls are reporting right now when Romney vs. Obama is the question posed. Assuming those who support Santorum in the primary throw their support behind Romney when asked about the choice between Obama/Romney it just doesn't seem likely that Romney securing the nomination will change the result on its own merit just because he's officially the nominee.

Because that's not how people with a vested interest in the outcome of a poll work. If you want Santorum, you pick Obama over Romney even if you are likely to vote differently because electability is one of the issues many are considering now. Choosing Obama over Romney in these polls is actually another way to indirectly support Santorum. It's also a way of shaping Romney's platform to better align with your views. Not saying it's effective, but that's the thought process. If I want Santorum, there's no way I'm doing anything that could positively impact how Romney is viewed - that's a biased answer.

dtdtim;1108482 wrote:Voter turnout is going to be down, I agree. Who this benefits remains to be seen but sluggish turnout almost always benefits the Republicans.

The wildcard in play is how each campaign's GOTV effort/energizing reacts to the other campaign's same effort. Romney can poll very well in FL, OH, VA, and NC but he needs the Latino vote in Nevada, Colorado, and Florida to win. Obama is in the same boat. That's why I think it's more important.

I think it's going to really boil down to the economy. Reagan and Clinton both unseated incumbents, despite relatively lackluster approval ratings heading in, primarily because of slow/bad economies. Obama has worse dissaproval ratings, comparable to Carter and worse than GHB, and significantly worse economy (again comparable to Carter, but considerably worse than Bush).

I think you're grossly underestimating the swing that will take place in disillusioned voters for Dems/Repubs vs. 2008. Many Repubs had sharp disdain for the party, and McCain/Palin only compounded that. Many stayed home, but many also voted Dem. Meanwhile, many Dem voters were inspired and excited to go to the polls. And if 2010 is any indication, we're going to see that flip-flop to a large degree. Obama has a major struggle ahead if his voters merely stay home, if they switch in any meaningful number it might be insurmountable because those Repubs that switched are going back in droves, and the ones who couldn't be inspired to vote for McCain and stayed home are also coming out in force to vote AGAINST Obama.

Obama can only dream of having an economy as good as GHB in 1992 at this point. He's in a lot of trouble. The liberal media are doing their best to ignore and distract from that reality, but when voters go to the polls they still know if their own wallet is too light. Romney is no Ronald Reagan as far as charisma and speaking, but he doesn't have to be to crush the reincarnation of Jimmy Carter.

gut;1108511 wrote:I think it's going to really boil down to the economy.....

Obama can only dream of having an economy as good as GHB in 1992 at this point. He's in a lot of trouble. The liberal media are doing their best to ignore and distract from that reality, but when voters go to the polls they still know if their own wallet is too light. Romney is no Ronald Reagan as far as charisma and speaking, but he doesn't have to be to crush the reincarnation of Jimmy Carter.

The only factor that can turn the tide is if the MSM and the BHO campaign take the focus off the economy and get people to dwell on the social issues. Right now they're being fairly successful at it.

But I'd agree that in the final analysis, people usually vote with their wallets. Unless the economy rebounds in a significant way in just a few short months, Obama is pretty much toast.

beliver;1108540 wrote: But I'd agree that in the final analysis, people usually vote with their wallets. Unless the economy rebounds in a significant way in just a few short months, Obama is pretty much toast.

And Romney is actually a great foil to Obama's biggest failings - he has a proven track record in Massachusetts, and he's got a great background in business/investment. Seems like it's not a difficult message to convey. Certainly much more palatable to moderates/Dems than the other Repubs. The primary voters who prefer the others right now, they're not staying home and they ain't voting Obama because, ultimately, Obama eats at much of their core much more so than Romney fails to be their ideal candidate. Which means Romney stands to gain far more than he will lose vs. the rest of the field. That's why this "electability" issue seems a bit bogus to me - guy DID get elected gov of one of the most liberal states, after all.

I completely disagree people are voting for the others in hopes to get some white knight to enter in the 11th hour. Those others aren't electable - they each appeal strongly to a special "interest" group, but lack broad appeal. Really just strikes me as people pounding the table to get Romney to embrace more of their values. Not going to happen in the general and would be bullshit if it did. Those people will begrudgingly pull the lever for Romney because the simple fact is Obama is for far too much that they are not - they are the strongest ABO base.

gut;1108555 wrote:And Romney is actually a great foil to Obama's biggest failings - he has a proven track record in Massachusetts, and he's got a great background in business/investment. Seems like it's not a difficult message to convey. Certainly much more palatable to moderates/Dems than the other Repubs. The primary voters who prefer the others right now, they're not staying home and they ain't voting Obama because, ultimately, Obama eats at much of their core much more so than Romney fails to be their ideal candidate. Which means Romney stands to gain far more than he will lose vs. the rest of the field. That's why this "electability" issue seems a bit bogus to me - guy DID get elected gov of one of the most liberal states, after all.

I completely disagree people are voting for the others in hopes to get some white knight to enter in the 11th hour. Those others aren't electable - they each appeal strongly to a special "interest" group, but lack broad appeal. Really just strikes me as people pounding the table to get Romney to embrace more of their values. Not going to happen in the general and would be bullshit if it did. Those people will begrudgingly pull the lever for Romney because the simple fact is Obama is for far too much that they are not - they are the strongest ABO base.

True but the wild card is the Paulbotoid vote. It'll be interesting to see if most of the Paulists will pull the lever for Willard, write-in their hero's name, or simply abstain.

believer;1108567 wrote:True but the wild card is the Paulbotoid vote. It'll be interesting to see if most of the Paulists will pull the lever for Willard, write-in their hero's name, or simply abstain.

I won't abstain from voting. I will not write in his name either. My vote will basically come down to this

1. Ron Paul runs third party- I vote for him. I do not think this is a realistic possibility because I feel like he really does not want to do that.
2. My second choice at this point would be voting for Gary Johnson
3. The only way I could see myself voting for Romney is if Paul were offered the Treasury job or FED job.

As for Romney, He is a good business man. I will give him that . He is a smart guy who understands how to manage people I think. My problem with Romney is he will say and do whatever makes him popular at the time instead of standing by his convictions. I think Romneys problem is he has been trying to appeal to the tea party conservatives so much and that is not him. I do not think he is as War hungry as Santorum or Gingrich or that he cares that much about the social issues like those two do either. I think he just wants to get to the general so he can talk about the economy and leave these other issues alone.

I do think the libertarian portion of the party is on the rise and I am hoping that at the end of this , Paul is able to pass the torch on to someone who might be better at getting the message out and able to convince people to join the cause.

QuakerOats;1108350 wrote:The numbers say something completely different. obama got 53% last time and now he will lose some votes from Catholics, Jews and independents, among others. Yet, he has nowhere to go to pick up votes to offset the losses, nowhere. No one who voted against him the last time is now going to vote for him - that is preposterous; so, given the votes he will lose and not be able to replace, he will be lucky to get to 45%.

It's over.

I will literally bet you any amount you would like that Obama will be reelected. You name the price and we've got a deal.

Same goes for anyone else who'd like to get in on the action.

believer;1108567 wrote:True but the wild card is the Paulbotoid vote. It'll be interesting to see if most of the Paulists will pull the lever for Willard, write-in their hero's name, or simply abstain.

I won't. If Paul isn't on the ballot and one of the other three GOP candidates is the nominee I will be voting for Obama. I'm not really alone in that opinion either.

believer;1108567 wrote:True but the wild card is the Paulbotoid vote. It'll be interesting to see if most of the Paulists will pull the lever for Willard, write-in their hero's name, or simply abstain.

I won't abstain. I doubt I will write in Paul's name. If it is Romney vs. Obama I will most likely vote for Gary Johnson. There is zero chance I would vote for Romney no matter who his VP is.

I won't. If Paul isn't on the ballot and one of the other three GOP candidates is the nominee I will be voting for Obama. I'm not really alone in that opinion either

aha...the liberal democrat comes out of the closet. What a joke lecturing us on the definition of true 'conservative'...lol. I wonder if you ever really supported Paul in the first place as I seem to remember your views last election, and your seemingly supportive take on government mandates in healthcare. Liar liar, pants on fire.

HitsRus;1108710 wrote:aha...the liberal democrat comes out of the closet. What a joke lecturing us on the definition of true 'conservative'...lol. I wonder if you ever really supported Paul in the first place as I seem to remember your views last election, and your seemingly supportive take on government mandates in healthcare. Liar liar, pants on fire.

Perhaps Paul supporters would lean towards Obama because he's somewhat more closely aligned on foreign policy with Paul than any of the Republicans?

Granted, neither side is close with Paul in that regard. But unlike the Republican field, I don't think Obama is masturbating multiple times per week to the thought of bombing Iran.

2kool4skool;1108736 wrote:Perhaps Paul supporters would lean towards Obama because he's somewhat more closely aligned on foreign policy with Paul than any of the Republicans?

Granted, neither side is close with Paul in that regard. But unlike the Republican field, I don't think Obama is masturbating multiple times per week to the thought of bombing Iran.

Yes continually dumping money into foreign countries is more in line with Paul than the rest of the GOP field....

Dumping money into everything seems to be an Obama trait...I don't see how that aligns with Paul. Big spending entitlement programs and ensuing litany of government mandates doesn't align with Paul. I don't see how politcal posturing on foreign policy trumps what it actually happening domestically. Now I understand how people have hot button issues....favorite issues...that trigger how you vote. Wille Nelson and Snoop Dog are Ron Paul supporters ( favor legalization of marijuana)...but if Paul is not an option, I could see them punching their ticket for Obama. But neither of those guys have the audacity to lecture on 'true conservatism' before throwing in with the most leftist president since FDR.

I Wear Pants;1108602 wrote:I won't. If Paul isn't on the ballot and one of the other three GOP candidates is the nominee I will be voting for Obama. I'm not really alone in that opinion either.

Who did you vote for the last time?

HitsRus;1108770 wrote:Dumping money into everything seems to be an Obama trait...I don't see how that aligns with Paul. Big spending entitlement programs and ensuing litany of government mandates doesn't align with Paul. I don't see how politcal posturing on foreign policy trumps what it actually happening domestically. Now I understand how people have hot button issues....favorite issues...that trigger how you vote. Wille Nelson and Snoop Dog are Ron Paul supporters ( favor legalization of marijuana)...but if Paul is not an option, I could see them punching their ticket for Obama. But neither of those guys have the audacity to lecture on 'true conservatism' before throwing in with the most leftist president since FDR.

Actually Barack Obama is probably the most conservative democratic president since FDR. It just seems like he's a liberal because Republicans are more conservative than they have ever been.





Even in the Senate we a sharp turn towards conservatism in 2008.


http://voteview.com/blog/

Keith Poole and Chris Hare are political scientists at the University of Georgia.

dtdtim;1108449 wrote:I see what you did here...

You literally took Gut's personally thought out and coherent response to my original post, moved statements around in a different order/highlighted some key words/stats he used, peppered in some ridiculously baseless comment that anyone bothering to spend 2 minutes googling can counter, and webster.com'ed the word 'preposterous' to add in for effect. Well done, sir.

Honestly, people can think what they want and do what they want on this board, but I like to occasionally stop by, ask a couple questions, engage in some friendly debate and, imagine this, maybe learn a little something from those that have different viewpoints than I. I gather you're probably not here for that, but to each his own.

If it wouldn't be too much of a hassle, I'd like to know how you arrived at 45% in your own words. Not in a summary of someone else's post. Just YOU. In your own words. Not some compiling of catchphrases with a percentage at the end of it. And I'm not joking, I'm honestly curious and want to know how you arrived at the number and what evidence leads you to this conclusion. PM me if you wish.

Are you serious? I don't think you will need to cull through a couple of thousand posts of mine in order to discern a pattern of original content, but you are welcome to do so, Sir.

BoatShoes;1109077 wrote:Actually Barack Obama is probably the most conservative democratic president since FDR. It just seems like he's a liberal because Republicans are more conservative than they have ever been.
a.

Here we go again; I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Only liberal university professors getting government grants could even begin to formulate charts to achieve such a ridiculous, but pre-determined, outcome.

If obama is a conservative democrat, then Mitt Romney is to the right of Attila the Hun.

Perhaps Paul supporters would lean towards Obama because he's somewhat more closely aligned on foreign policy with Paul than any of the Republicans?

Does this sound like something Paul would align with?
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/153566

BoatShoes;1109077 wrote:Actually Barack Obama is probably the most conservative democratic president since FDR. It just seems like he's a liberal because Republicans are more conservative than they have ever been.

You're kidding right? How is he the most conservative democratic president since FDR when he has spent more than any other president ever? And the R's are more conservative than they have ever been? That's a laugh, they're as bad as the D's! I would really like to know what the metrics of those ridiculous graphs are based upon.

[video=youtube;iQXeGtfqCOw][/video]

dwccrew;1109313 wrote:You're kidding right? How is he the most conservative democratic president since FDR when he has spent more than any other president ever? And the R's are more conservative than they have ever been? That's a laugh, they're as bad as the D's! I would really like to know what the metrics of those ridiculous graphs are based upon.

I have a few observations:
1) We've been marching steadily toward an increase in social programs....More "liberal" issues to vote on will result in higher numbers of "no" votes from conservatives, causing an appearance of a shift further right when in reality it's the mix of legislation shifting.

2) A President generally only needs to come out and express a view to promote his agenda when something needs his support to pass. Since the President doesn't vote, this scores him only when he clearly has a position. He had such favorable majorities in both the House and Senate that anything he opposed doesn't have much chance of getting to a full vote, anyway. It would have to be a pretty liberal policy for him to need to come out in strong support to push it through (i.e. healtcare). But healthcare, by the way, they don't even score as a liberal issue I don't think - Repubs used to be for healthcare, apparently, and so opposing this is then also somehow moving further to the right.

3) In addition to #2 above, Obama has Crazy Aunt Pelosi and Weird Uncle Harry to push his agenda. Again, very strong majorities in both houses (at least the first 2 years) and a couple of ultra-liberal nutjobs to lead it. So he completely has the luxury of letting them lead on more divisive issues while he gets to be less outspoken and pretend to be closer to center and more unifying.

Again, he swept into office with really a lot of excitement and support (truthfully I think even a lot of people who voted against him were hopeful - not many shed a tear over McCain losing). Had a supermajority in the House and nearly in the Senate. You got Pelosi and Reid and others frothing at the mouth after waiting years to start cramming down their agenda. Where we are today is SQUARELY on Obama's shoulders. Yet he's about to launch a campaign claiming to have been blocked and obstructed by Republicans and a lot of excuses and fingerpointing.

And given where we are today, how anyone can't see what an abject failure he's been, on multiple fronts, is beyond me. He almost couldn't have dreamed of a better set-up for success and to implement his agenda. He hasn't moved the needle on the economy. He'll take credit for GM, but the fact is that was already teed-up just waiting on a signature when Bush left, with TARP already in the works...and both needed doing. Liberals aren't all that happy with what he's been able to pass/change and what he hasn't. His crowning moment is cramming thru a healthcare bill over half the country opposes. How is everyone NOT seeing this guy as a failure?

If he gets elected again, then THANK GOD for term limits.