ZWICK 4 PREZ
Posts: 7,733
Oct 8, 2012 9:11am
Especially since the Pubs threw up John Kerry against Obama
[video=youtube;W_pgfWK3sxw][/video]
[video=youtube;W_pgfWK3sxw][/video]
M
Manhattan Buckeye
Posts: 7,566
Oct 8, 2012 9:22am
No part of that post made any sense.
ZWICK 4 PREZ
Posts: 7,733
Oct 8, 2012 9:51am
You're really disappointing me lately. Until this year I could have sworn you were a smart guy.Manhattan Buckeye;1290177 wrote:No part of that post made any sense.
2004 we have an incumbent that didn't have an easy 3.5 years. Many think as long as the opposing party doesn't nominate a dud, he's only getting 1 term. The Dems threw up John Kerry who didn't have a stance on anything and would flip flop on key issues just hoping you would like him. The Republicans, in so many words, threw up a John Kerry in the same exact setting. A rich out of touch East coaster that doesn't hold a single belief of his own and will flop flop on any issue.
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Oct 8, 2012 10:44am
The economy in 2004 was considerably better than today. Dems tried to make it a referendum on the wars, and to large extent they did it just didn't quite break the way they hoped.
This election is very different. It WILL be a referendum on the economy and Dems are trying to make it a referendum on Romney's success. They need a different tactic (if they have one) because the American people are getting to see Romney/Ryan for who they really are, not the carefully misconstructed image the Obama campaign and liberal media have been trying to create of them.
This election is very different. It WILL be a referendum on the economy and Dems are trying to make it a referendum on Romney's success. They need a different tactic (if they have one) because the American people are getting to see Romney/Ryan for who they really are, not the carefully misconstructed image the Obama campaign and liberal media have been trying to create of them.
ZWICK 4 PREZ
Posts: 7,733
Oct 8, 2012 10:47am
Au contraire.. in 2004 the economy was still declining, in 2012 the economy is rebounding.. if anything there was more of a point to dismiss the incumbent.gut;1290219 wrote:The economy in 2004 was considerably better than today. Dems tried to make it a referendum on the wars, and to large extent they did it just didn't quite break the way they hoped.
This election is very different. It WILL be a referendum on the economy and Dems are trying to make it a referendum on Romney's success. They need a different tactic (if they have one) because the American people are getting to see Romney/Ryan for who they really are, not the carefully misconstructed image the Obama campaign and liberal media have been trying to create of them.
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Oct 8, 2012 10:57am
LMFAO, where do you get your information?ZWICK 4 PREZ;1290221 wrote:Au contraire.. in 2004 the economy was still declining, in 2012 the economy is rebounding.. if anything there was more of a point to dismiss the incumbent.
fish82
Posts: 4,111
Oct 8, 2012 11:01am
Economic growth for 2004 was between 3.6-3.9% each quarter, and averaged 181K new jobs per month. :rolleyes:ZWICK 4 PREZ;1290221 wrote:Au contraire.. in 2004 the economy was still declining, in 2012 the economy is rebounding.. if anything there was more of a point to dismiss the incumbent.
ZWICK 4 PREZ
Posts: 7,733
Oct 8, 2012 11:02am
I don't know.. real life? My investments are up 14.1% this year alone.. hard to do that in a tanking ecnomy.gut;1290225 wrote:LMFAO, where do you get your information?
Our company has invested 250 million in Stark County alone this year and hired 300 people. Hard to do that in a tanking economy too. My salary increased 15% this year also.. that's sure not a sign of a tanking economy. Unemploment is down and company after company (including the one i work for) are making record profits. That's also not a sign of a tanking economy.
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
Oct 8, 2012 11:14am
Nice anecdotal evidence.ZWICK 4 PREZ;1290231 wrote:I don't know.. real life? My investments are up 14.1% this year alone.. hard to do that in a tanking ecnomy.
Our company has invested 250 million in Stark County alone this year and hired 300 people. Hard to do that in a tanking economy too. My salary increased 15% this year also.. that's sure not a sign of a tanking economy. Unemploment is down and company after company (including the one i work for) are making record profits. That's also not a sign of a tanking economy.
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Oct 8, 2012 11:18am
Derp derp derp da biska dusleeper;1290243 wrote:Nice anecdotal evidence.
Ty Webb
Posts: 2,798
Oct 8, 2012 11:25am
Wow....I honestly think there are going to be several mental breakdowns on November 7th if President Obama is re-elected.
Oh by the way...Rassmussen is all tied up again
Oh by the way...Rassmussen is all tied up again
fish82
Posts: 4,111
Oct 8, 2012 11:29am
Why? Obie is the favorite. It's his race to lose. You people have been telling us that for a year. I'm fully at peace with whatever happens.Ty Webb;1290253 wrote:Wow....I honestly think there are going to be several mental breakdowns on November 7th if President Obama is re-elected.
Oh by the way...Rassmussen is all tied up again
If we want to get into some psychoanalysis, you really need to figure out how you feel about Rasmussen.
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Oct 8, 2012 11:33am
Yep, more failing companies is good for business. Bad for the country, good for me personally. So I won't cry if Obama wins. When people whine for more handouts I'll just say "socialism sucks, this is what you voted for".
This election should be a slam-dunk for Romney. Yet, inexplicably, Obama's base are the ones that have been disproportionately hurt by the Obamaconomy. It's amazing. The people getting the shaft are the ones that are eager for 4 more years of hardship.
This election should be a slam-dunk for Romney. Yet, inexplicably, Obama's base are the ones that have been disproportionately hurt by the Obamaconomy. It's amazing. The people getting the shaft are the ones that are eager for 4 more years of hardship.
Ty Webb
Posts: 2,798
Oct 8, 2012 11:33am
I don't like Rasmussen...but it seems like whenever a good poll for Romney comes out it's all some posters here want to talk about...yet when a good poll for President Obama comes from him..no one says a wordfish82;1290256 wrote:Why? Obie is the favorite. It's his race to lose. You people have been telling us that for a year. I'm fully at peace with whatever happens.
If we want to get into some psychoanalysis, you really need to figure out how you feel about Rasmussen.
Ty Webb
Posts: 2,798
Oct 8, 2012 11:34am
By the way....this is an excellent article everyone should read:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/06/health/republicans-conflicted-obamacare/index.html#cnn-disqus-area
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/06/health/republicans-conflicted-obamacare/index.html#cnn-disqus-area
ZWICK 4 PREZ
Posts: 7,733
Oct 8, 2012 11:34am
thank yousleeper;1290243 wrote:Nice anecdotal evidence.
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Oct 8, 2012 11:36am
The hypocrisy is strong in this one...Ty Webb;1290258 wrote:I don't like Rasmussen...but it seems like whenever a good poll for Romney comes out it's all some posters here want to talk about...yet when a good poll for President Obama comes from him..no one says a word
fish82
Posts: 4,111
Oct 8, 2012 11:49am
Gallup is tied too. Mittens closes a 5-point gap.Ty Webb;1290258 wrote:I don't like Rasmussen...but it seems like whenever a good poll for Romney comes out it's all some posters here want to talk about...yet when a good poll for President Obama comes from him..no one says a word
Hope this helps.
Heretic
Posts: 18,820
Oct 8, 2012 11:53am
You mean like how a lot of lower-income working whites in the south who tend to vote "R" no matter what are in Romney's 47%, as has been said on here more than once since those comments came out?gut;1290257 wrote:This election should be a slam-dunk for Romney. Yet, inexplicably, Obama's base are the ones that have been disproportionately hurt by the Obamaconomy. It's amazing. The people getting the shaft are the ones that are eager for 4 more years of hardship.
fish82
Posts: 4,111
Oct 8, 2012 11:57am
"47%" is the new "show us the tax returns."
It's off the national radar for the most part.
It's off the national radar for the most part.
Ty Webb
Posts: 2,798
Oct 8, 2012 12:00pm
Wow....
Mitt laid a major dud in his foreign policy speech today
Mitt laid a major dud in his foreign policy speech today
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Oct 8, 2012 12:03pm
Well, they really shouldn't be voting for Obama, should they?Heretic;1290280 wrote:You mean like how a lot of lower-income working whites in the south who tend to vote "R" no matter what are in Romney's 47%, as has been said on here more than once since those comments came out?
There are ignorant voters on both sides of the aisle. What's surprising is how many people are still drunk on the the 2008 "hope and change" platform despite being sold an obvious bill of goods.
jhay78
Posts: 1,917
Oct 8, 2012 12:13pm
1980
Ty Webb
Posts: 2,798
Oct 8, 2012 12:16pm
NOT EVEN CLOSEjhay78;1290299 wrote:1980
2004 is more like it