Could it get any worse for Romney: Polls show him down 10 points, GOP playing dead

[evanrick]

I read these threads and lose sleep -- I don't see a good future no matter who wins.

Couldn't we just do without a president for four years?

The court upheld Obamacare and Obama is being re-elected. Id say we have reasons to hope, but its going to take a long time to repair the damage the GOP has done to the American family.

 

[Zingerific]

This is a little late, but I thought I'd comment anyway.

Ford doesn't count as he was designed as a placeholder president (no offense to him intended) who couldn't escape the taint of the Nixon Administration and those very extraordinary circumstances.

Ford faced even more obstacles than you mention. First, he almost lost the Republican nomination to Reagan. Second, he had terrible debate gaffes; Ford stated that there was no Soviet domination in eastern Europe -- in 1976!

But despite everything, he almost won! So I think even '76, where the incumbent lost, still demonstrates the incredible power of incumbency.

 

[spiderpig1013]

Romney...oy.
One advantage he has over Obama is that he's really good at making money...for himself!.
I doubt he's gonna win. He may have the distinguised look and all, and he has the backing of the GOP, which has policies that are bat-shit crazy, but if he gets into office there's gonna be a war again, i have no doubt that upon the return of the Republicans to the White House, someone is gonna say something bad about something and bad stuff is gonna go down, and honestly Romney is kinda diplomatically retarded.
If i were the President of a company, I would not hire Romney as my international salesman, i'd hire him as a model for Chino's, Khaki pants, maybe Grecian 2000 before model, because who goes to a friends house and says, "wow nice house i hope you can pay for it", which is what he actually did when he went to London. If that is how he handles a long time ally of the U.S. how's he going to handle China, Russia, India, Mexico, Brazil, Cuba, Venezuela, and a whole bunch of other countries that i know that they exist but dont know where they are in a map.
Obama i think has a good chance at winning, he inherited a crippled economy, two wars and a divided nation, in four years his foreign policy and strategy have ended the conflict with Irak, failed to capture but definitely brought down Osama, helped take down dictatorships in the Middle East and not once did he brought the lives of U.S. armed forces into the conflict alone, he had the assistance of the U.S.'s allies like France and Italy. He has handled things in the middle east like a fairly well. Domestically he's been challenged by the conservatives and medievalist's, but not because they dont agree with his policies, but because he is actually working with some of their policies and taking credit for them, a few in benefit of the middle and lower class, and these threatens the upper class and start whining that its class warfare. But the policies should not bother them, if the super rich who get rich from the work done by the workers, either domestic or offshore, help create enough hunger and despair among the people they live among, they will eventually create an imbalance in the system that will provoke retaliation, and only when this happens will they truly see what class warfare is, and honestly nobody wants that.
Obama has worked alright, not excellent, but given what he walked into back in 08, he's done ok.

 

[Zingerific]

a "secret weapon" would be Mitt Romney actually explaining the American Public just how he will fix this economic mess coherently and specifically

Oh, Chance, this is comedy gold. I think I'll steal it for my own use The problem is that Romney can't be specific, and he is constitutionally unable to be coherent, so he's in trouble.

I'll throw my to cents in on the media debate. On the one hand, the conservatives love to demonize the media; I swear, were every journalist to die and be replaced by people handpicked by the RNC, they would still blame all and sundry on the evil liberal media. On the other hand, conservatives love to dance on the grave of the mainstream media, citing the high ratings of Fox and right wing talk radio. So which is it? Either they've won the media war or they're still being thwarted at every turn. They can't have both.

 

[evanrick]

Romney...oy.
One advantage he has over Obama is that he's really good at making money...for himself!.
I doubt he's gonna win. He may have the distinguised look and all, and he has the backing of the GOP, which has policies that are bat-shit crazy, but if he gets into office there's gonna be a war again, i have no doubt that upon the return of the Republicans to the White House, someone is gonna say something bad about something and bad stuff is gonna go down, and honestly Romney is kinda diplomatically retarded.
If i were the President of a company, I would not hire Romney as my international salesman, i'd hire him as a model for Chino's, Khaki pants, maybe Grecian 2000 before model, because who goes to a friends house and says, "wow nice house i hope you can pay for it", which is what he actually did when he went to London. If that is how he handles a long time ally of the U.S. how's he going to handle China, Russia, India, Mexico, Brazil, Cuba, Venezuela, and a whole bunch of other countries that i know that they exist but dont know where they are in a map.
Obama i think has a good chance at winning, he inherited a crippled economy, two wars and a divided nation, in four years his foreign policy and strategy have ended the conflict with Irak, failed to capture but definitely brought down Osama, helped take down dictatorships in the Middle East and not once did he brought the lives of U.S. armed forces into the conflict alone, he had the assistance of the U.S.'s allies like France and Italy. He has handled things in the middle east like a fairly well. Domestically he's been challenged by the conservatives and medievalist's, but not because they dont agree with his policies, but because he is actually working with some of their policies and taking credit for them, a few in benefit of the middle and lower class, and these threatens the upper class and start whining that its class warfare. But the policies should not bother them, if the super rich who get rich from the work done by the workers, either domestic or offshore, help create enough hunger and despair among the people they live among, they will eventually create an imbalance in the system that will provoke retaliation, and only when this happens will they truly see what class warfare is, and honestly nobody wants that.
Obama has worked alright, not excellent, but given what he walked into back in 08, he's done ok.

Nobody wants all out class warfare? I agreed with most of your ideas until that point. The war has already been declared.

And hes done OK? What else would need to happen to be more than just OK?

I mean the most significant domestic and foreign achievements in the past 50 years both happened under Obama. Get real bro.

What I mean to say is its OK to have high standards, but let us not have the perfect be the enemy of the good.

 

[evanrick]

Chance, I think I can shed some light on that upset.

One pundit on MSNBC explained it very clearly, so I'll pass it on to you.

In non-union places like Nevada, it's hard for a person to understand the lunacy of what happened in WI, because in NV "union" is just another word in a dictionary. I don't know one single person in a union.

But in WI (and probably NYC), unions are so entrenched in the system that they have become to be seen AS the establishment. Some places have been unionized for 100 years.

So the people in those states see unions as the establishment that causes the problems. They have this utopian view that if, somehow unions were removed from the equation, business would just prosper.

It's a utopian view that's outdated by decades, but Wisconsinites don't have any other frame of reference on which to make a judgment. They make decisions based on what they see--like we all do.

This is insightful but you cant forget that the democrat was outspent 10 to 1 as well. I think people who are anti-union are just bitter and see labor as a target for their own problems.

 

[Zingerific]

This is insightful but you cant forget that the democrat was outspent 10 to 1 as well. I think people who are anti-union are just bitter and see labor as a target for their own problems.

Two things to add. 1) Walker's opponent was Tom Barrett, who he'd already defeated. I'm thinking that someone new may have had a better chance than a retread. 2) My understanding is that many people just didn't like the whole idea of a recall. That's a little too formalist for my way of thinking, but I can see people being persuaded that way.

 

[Benvolio]

Unions are price fixing conspiracies. Like all price fixing conspiracies they exist to extort excessive prices for their goods and services. Eventually they destroy their immediate victims--employers. We have lost much of our heavy manufacturing because of their inability to meed foreign competition. Now cities all over the country are going bankrupt because of the excessive wages, benefits and pensions extorted by unions and their captive board members.

 

[Kulindahr]

Actually its not much of a choice, a lot of the campaign funds that have been raised cannot be used by law until he is officially named the candidate at the convention. He has been forced to spend most of his other funds on the rather protracted nomination process so he is currently handicapped on funds.

He won't write himself a check? Sounds like he really doesn't want the job, just the adulation.

Chance, I think I can shed some light on that upset.

One pundit on MSNBC explained it very clearly, so I'll pass it on to you.

In non-union places like Nevada, it's hard for a person to understand the lunacy of what happened in WI, because in NV "union" is just another word in a dictionary. I don't know one single person in a union.

But in WI (and probably NYC), unions are so entrenched in the system that they have become to be seen AS the establishment. Some places have been unionized for 100 years.

So the people in those states see unions as the establishment that causes the problems. They have this utopian view that if, somehow unions were removed from the equation, business would just prosper.

It's a utopian view that's outdated by decades, but Wisconsinites don't have any other frame of reference on which to make a judgment. They make decisions based on what they see--like we all do.

That's a good thing to remember! It definitely matches with where I've lived. The difference is that rural folks tend to look down on unions a lot because they really don't grasp the impersonal nature of employment in large industries, so they don't really get that hard work doesn't necessarily mean success.

 

[Kulindahr]

Do you have any proof for this nonsense? If not don't make these claims.

Actually he's accurate... about a few unions. But he's committing a fallacy by extending the corruption of a few to describe all.

 

[hotatlboi]

Even Rasmussen now shows Romney losing. Can't be good for him.

 

[CowboyBob]

They need to keep associating Romney with the previous republican administration. Compare Romneys policies with Dubya's policies. Mention their names together a lot.

http://www.examiner.com/article/geo...-convention-avoiding-reminder-of-his-failures

Dammit! At the convention I was looking forward to a "Bring It On" speech by Bush, a "Real Americans" speech by Palin, a "Secular-Socialist Machine" speech by Gingrich, a "What A Snob" speech by Santorum, a "Muslim Brotherhood" speech by Bachmann, and an "I can Count To Three" speech by Perry.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns...ng-republican-national-convention-129622.html

 

[rareboy]

Yea, and Rasmussen oversamples republicans big time. Republicans don't even universally back their candidate.

So what do the Romney worshippers have to say about how this poll is flawed as well?

 

[Benvolio]

So what do the Romney worshippers have to say about how this poll is flawed as well

Rasmussen is very clear that he attempts to sample probable voters rather than merely registered voters. Not sure how he does this, but apparently he asks. This results in giving less advantage to Democrats because Republicans are more likely to say they will vote, and historically Republicans turn out better than the Democrat base.
Other polls generally start with a sample which reflects the registered voters. So, if there are 5% more registered Dems in the state, they put that many more in the sample, which assumes that they will turn out as well as Republicans.
Whether his method is flawed depends on his record,which he discusses at his website.
RasmussenReports.com He is not as partisan as Dems would like you to believe.

 

[LuvFindsAndyHardy]

So what do the Romney worshippers have to say about how this poll is flawed as well?

Funny you should say that Rareboy because, whaddaya know? The answer is YES. ALL the polls are flawed and, apparently, it's......drum roll please.....ALL THE FAULT OF THE LIBERAL MEDIA!!!! Taaaaa-Daaaaaaaaaa!

I had the (dis)pleasure of forcing myself to watch an entire evening of Fox News last night (DVR-ing Rachel Maddow to get the taste out of my mouth for afterwards) and little Dick (such purdy toes ya got honey, how much?) Morris was on Hannity explaining it all to us. It seems only HE has the real dish and Romney is doing just fine, thank you very much and it's just those nasty folks in the liberal mainstream (or should I say "lamestream" get it? snort snort) media that are misreporting and misrepresenting them in Obama's favor!

Whew...so there ya go!

Oh, don't just take his word for it on Hannity, lone wolf "explains it all" on his website

The Real Poll Numbers at DickMorris.com

 

[chance1]

^ and you watched it ....... Why ?

Punishing yourself for something ?

 

[LuvFindsAndyHardy]

^ and you watched it ....... Why ?

Punishing yourself for something ?

Same reason I used to force myself to watch the 700 Club. It's important to know what the other side is thinking. Let me say this, it's like living on Mars over there on Fox News, it's such an alternate reality. No WONDER their viewers are convinced that the American public is three steps away from storming the front gates of the White House!

 

[Kulindahr]

Funny you should say that Rareboy because, whaddaya know? The answer is YES. ALL the polls are flawed and, apparently, it's......drum roll please.....ALL THE FAULT OF THE LIBERAL MEDIA!!!! Taaaaa-Daaaaaaaaaa!

I had the (dis)pleasure of forcing myself to watch an entire evening of Fox News last night (DVR-ing Rachel Maddow to get the taste out of my mouth for afterwards) and little Dick (such purdy toes ya got honey, how much?) Morris was on Hannity explaining it all to us. It seems only HE has the real dish and Romney is doing just fine, thank you very much and it's just those nasty folks in the liberal mainstream (or should I say "lamestream" get it? snort snort) media that are misreporting and misrepresenting them in Obama's favor!

Whew...so there ya go!

Oh, don't just take his word for it on Hannity, lone wolf "explains it all" on his website

The Real Poll Numbers at DickMorris.com

I love the way he totally ignores the fact that in those states he touts as going to Romney because Obama is showing less than 50%, Romney is still trailing by significant margins.

 

[Kulindahr]

Same reason I used to force myself to watch the 700 Club. It's important to know what the other side is thinking. Let me say this, it's like living on Mars over there on Fox News, it's such an alternate reality. No WONDER their viewers are convinced that the American public is three steps away from storming the front gates of the White House!

You actually watch that antichrist?

I can't get through more than five minutes of Robertson's slick, supercilious hypocrisy and false portrayal of the Bible without fighting down nausea.

 

[LuvFindsAndyHardy]

You actually watch that antichrist?

No no, not recently. This was back in 1992 or so during Clinton's campaign.