4li2k73z   Share your Vital activity on Facebook (More info)
close

Participating Members

Romney in trouble

9/9/2012 6:45 AM
Edited Date/Time: 9/9/2012 6:53 AM

Rasmussen and Gallup both released polling Saturday/Sunday, averaged over the last 3 to 7 days. Rasmussen in particular has had a Republican lean for a long time, but they both showed Obama over Romney 49/45. In terms of approval ratings, Obama is at 52 approve vs 42 and 47 disapprove for Gallup and Rasmussen respectively. Romney is trying to respond with a wave of attack ads, but the problem with that is, while attack ads might damage your opponent, they also make you less likeable - and Romney doesn't have any likeability to spare. Newt Gingrich asked, "Why do people immediately dislike me?", to which Bob Dole replied, "It saves them time." That's Romney. Running attack ads is just going to make that worse.

Joe Scarborough - a smart conservative - says Romney is going to have to be much more specific, especially about his tax plan. He says he wants to cut all rates, spend more on defense and balance the budget by closing loopholes, and now, according to Scarborough, he's going to have to say which loopholes he's talking about. Romney's problem there is that the only way the numbers work is if he closes the mortgage interest deduction, the tuition credit, the health care expense credit, and basically all the "loopholes" that the middle class normally uses. And then you find that his plan raises taxes on the middle class, cuts them dramatically for the extreme-upper class, and is totally unacceptable to Americans. If you think his polling is bad now, wait until you see what that would do. He can't tell the truth. That's suicide.

To make things even worse, his electoral map is almost impossible. He's given up on Michigan and Pennsylvania. Now he has to win almost all the contestable states to win the election. He can't possibly do that.

Now do you see why I keep telling you conservatives that you nominated the wrong guy? He's trying to win the Presidency with the same tactics that you use in a private equity buyout. Tell them as little as possible and hope that they'll take whatever you give them. That's not a strategy to become President.

Oh, well, it doesn't matter that much anyway. He never really cared anything about doing the job, he just wanted to win the job.

9/9/2012 6:56 AM
Edited Date/Time: 9/9/2012 6:57 AM

Willard can't tell us his plans or he'll lose. It's going to be all vague, non committal answers to the finish. His base will still buy it, they're betting on his jersey, they have no interest in specifics. It's going to get increasingly difficult to convince the undecided and independents to vote against Obama as opposed to voting for the mystery man as the shroud further envelopes the team.

Now what?

9/9/2012 7:17 AM

Predicting what our hopelessly ignorant electorate will do I will leave to you soothsayers, but I will predict this: both candidates will play directly to this ignorance. They know they are selling snake oil to a constituency hungry for snake oil. The only thing that our presidential elections ever settle is which contestant is better at it.

9/9/2012 7:33 AM

SShaw490 wrote: Rasmussen and Gallup both released polling Saturday/Sunday, averaged over the last 3 to 7 days. Rasmussen in particular has had a Republican lean for a long time, but they both showed Obama over Romney 49/45. In terms of approval ratings, Obama is at 52 approve vs 42 and 47 disapprove for Gallup and Rasmussen respectively. Romney is trying to respond with a wave of attack ads, but the problem with that is, while attack ads might damage your opponent, they also make you less likeable - and Romney doesn't have any likeability to spare. Newt Gingrich asked, "Why do people immediately dislike me?", to which Bob Dole replied, "It saves them time." That's Romney. Running attack ads is just going to make that worse.

Joe Scarborough - a smart conservative - says Romney is going to have to be much more specific, especially about his tax plan. He says he wants to cut all rates, spend more on defense and balance the budget by closing loopholes, and now, according to Scarborough, he's going to have to say which loopholes he's talking about. Romney's problem there is that the only way the numbers work is if he closes the mortgage interest deduction, the tuition credit, the health care expense credit, and basically all the "loopholes" that the middle class normally uses. And then you find that his plan raises taxes on the middle class, cuts them dramatically for the extreme-upper class, and is totally unacceptable to Americans. If you think his polling is bad now, wait until you see what that would do. He can't tell the truth. That's suicide.

To make things even worse, his electoral map is almost impossible. He's given up on Michigan and Pennsylvania. Now he has to win almost all the contestable states to win the election. He can't possibly do that.

Now do you see why I keep telling you conservatives that you nominated the wrong guy? He's trying to win the Presidency with the same tactics that you use in a private equity buyout. Tell them as little as possible and hope that they'll take whatever you give them. That's not a strategy to become President.

Oh, well, it doesn't matter that much anyway. He never really cared anything about doing the job, he just wanted to win the job.

Nice try Shaw, if you spent as much time trying to convince people why Obama is the right candidate instead of why Romney is the wrong candidate you might have a little more credibility. How you have this inside knowledge of why Romney is running, also lacks credibility...you state opinion like its hard fact.

You talk about honesty, you really think Obama is going to be honest about raising taxes on the middle class? If you think that fixing this mess will only be shouldered by the rich, you're mistaken...EVERYONE will have to pitch in.

9/9/2012 7:44 AM
Edited Date/Time: 9/9/2012 7:54 AM

SShaw490 wrote: Rasmussen and Gallup both released polling Saturday/Sunday, averaged over the last 3 to 7 days. Rasmussen in particular has had a Republican lean for a long time, but they both showed Obama over Romney 49/45. In terms of approval ratings, Obama is at 52 approve vs 42 and 47 disapprove for Gallup and Rasmussen respectively. Romney is trying to respond with a wave of attack ads, but the problem with that is, while attack ads might damage your opponent, they also make you less likeable - and Romney doesn't have any likeability to spare. Newt Gingrich asked, "Why do people immediately dislike me?", to which Bob Dole replied, "It saves them time." That's Romney. Running attack ads is just going to make that worse.

Joe Scarborough - a smart conservative - says Romney is going to have to be much more specific, especially about his tax plan. He says he wants to cut all rates, spend more on defense and balance the budget by closing loopholes, and now, according to Scarborough, he's going to have to say which loopholes he's talking about. Romney's problem there is that the only way the numbers work is if he closes the mortgage interest deduction, the tuition credit, the health care expense credit, and basically all the "loopholes" that the middle class normally uses. And then you find that his plan raises taxes on the middle class, cuts them dramatically for the extreme-upper class, and is totally unacceptable to Americans. If you think his polling is bad now, wait until you see what that would do. He can't tell the truth. That's suicide.

To make things even worse, his electoral map is almost impossible. He's given up on Michigan and Pennsylvania. Now he has to win almost all the contestable states to win the election. He can't possibly do that.

Now do you see why I keep telling you conservatives that you nominated the wrong guy? He's trying to win the Presidency with the same tactics that you use in a private equity buyout. Tell them as little as possible and hope that they'll take whatever you give them. That's not a strategy to become President.

Oh, well, it doesn't matter that much anyway. He never really cared anything about doing the job, he just wanted to win the job.

VET74 wrote: Nice try Shaw, if you spent as much time trying to convince people why Obama is the right candidate instead of why Romney is the wrong candidate you might have a little more credibility. How you have this inside knowledge of why Romney is running, also lacks credibility...you state opinion like its hard fact.

You talk about honesty, you really think Obama is going to be honest about raising taxes on the middle class? If you think that fixing this mess will only be shouldered by the rich, you're mistaken...EVERYONE will have to pitch in.

Everyone will have to pitch in? You better watch out, the Republican party will kick you to the curb talking like that. That sounds like that Communist Collectivism to me.

Seriously, why doesn't he say so? Why doesn't he admit he's going to raise middle class taxes by $2,000 or so? That his Medicaid cut will cut elderly people's nursing home benefits? Why doesn't he just say "We're all going to have to pitch in, even middle class families who are struggling to pay for their kids' college and elderly people who have been bankrupted by the cost of nursing homes, and as far as the surviving spouses of those elderly people in nursing homes, that's just the way it goes. I'll make sure that the cost of cat food doesn't go up too much. They have to pitch in, too. And we SHOULD cut taxes for the ultra wealthy. They're the job creators, you know."

Why doesn't he just say that?

9/9/2012 8:34 AM

Why should he come out and say it. Obama will continue his class warfare so that he get's elected, then he will turn around and tell everyone, sorry, I was left with no other choice but to raise taxes on everyone to pay for the social programs.

This is as much a chess match as anything, and I'm sure he's going to minimize tactical errors against his opponent...and for that I don't blame him.

The rich at the end of the day will continue to pay more than their fair share, while the poor and middle class continue to get pick pocketed by overpriced energy & consumables...meanwhile singing the praises of Obama, the one who's policies take their little bit of disposable income. This is the part of the argument I don't get.

9/9/2012 8:39 AM

VET74 wrote: Why should he come out and say it. Obama will continue his class warfare so that he get's elected, then he will turn around and tell everyone, sorry, I was left with no other choice but to raise taxes on everyone to pay for the social programs.

This is as much a chess match as anything, and I'm sure he's going to minimize tactical errors against his opponent...and for that I don't blame him.

The rich at the end of the day will continue to pay more than their fair share, while the poor and middle class continue to get pick pocketed by overpriced energy & consumables...meanwhile singing the praises of Obama, the one who's policies take their little bit of disposable income. This is the part of the argument I don't get.

Holy crap, in one thread you make the argument that if you've got nothing to hide, it should be OK for the government to record your life. In this thread, you are making the argument that a candidate for President shouldn't have to detail his plans for the country, because, well, he might lose.

Sounds about right for a Willard supporter. Just twist reality to fit your agenda, no big deal, it's all good in Romneyhood.

Unfugginbelievable.

Now what?

9/9/2012 8:41 AM

VET74 wrote: Why should he come out and say it. Obama will continue his class warfare so that he get's elected, then he will turn around and tell everyone, sorry, I was left with no other choice but to raise taxes on everyone to pay for the social programs.

This is as much a chess match as anything, and I'm sure he's going to minimize tactical errors against his opponent...and for that I don't blame him.

The rich at the end of the day will continue to pay more than their fair share, while the poor and middle class continue to get pick pocketed by overpriced energy & consumables...meanwhile singing the praises of Obama, the one who's policies take their little bit of disposable income. This is the part of the argument I don't get.

oldfart wrote: Holy crap, in one thread you make the argument that if you've got nothing to hide, it should be OK for the government to record your life. In this thread, you are making the argument that a candidate for President shouldn't have to detail his plans for the country, because, well, he might lose.

Sounds about right for a Willard supporter. Just twist reality to fit your agenda, no big deal, it's all good in Romneyhood.

Unfugginbelievable.

You know how the Obama campaign always uses the sunrise as a campaign symbol? Romney should use a pretzel.

9/9/2012 8:57 AM

VET74 wrote: Why should he come out and say it. Obama will continue his class warfare so that he get's elected, then he will turn around and tell everyone, sorry, I was left with no other choice but to raise taxes on everyone to pay for the social programs.

This is as much a chess match as anything, and I'm sure he's going to minimize tactical errors against his opponent...and for that I don't blame him.

The rich at the end of the day will continue to pay more than their fair share, while the poor and middle class continue to get pick pocketed by overpriced energy & consumables...meanwhile singing the praises of Obama, the one who's policies take their little bit of disposable income. This is the part of the argument I don't get.

oldfart wrote: Holy crap, in one thread you make the argument that if you've got nothing to hide, it should be OK for the government to record your life. In this thread, you are making the argument that a candidate for President shouldn't have to detail his plans for the country, because, well, he might lose.

Sounds about right for a Willard supporter. Just twist reality to fit your agenda, no big deal, it's all good in Romneyhood.

Unfugginbelievable.

You should really drink a cup of coffee and put your glasses on before you come on here in the morning. And if you deny that there isn't a strategy for elections then you are as dumb as I originally thought you were.

9/9/2012 9:05 AM

VET74 wrote: Why should he come out and say it. Obama will continue his class warfare so that he get's elected, then he will turn around and tell everyone, sorry, I was left with no other choice but to raise taxes on everyone to pay for the social programs.

This is as much a chess match as anything, and I'm sure he's going to minimize tactical errors against his opponent...and for that I don't blame him.

The rich at the end of the day will continue to pay more than their fair share, while the poor and middle class continue to get pick pocketed by overpriced energy & consumables...meanwhile singing the praises of Obama, the one who's policies take their little bit of disposable income. This is the part of the argument I don't get.

oldfart wrote: Holy crap, in one thread you make the argument that if you've got nothing to hide, it should be OK for the government to record your life. In this thread, you are making the argument that a candidate for President shouldn't have to detail his plans for the country, because, well, he might lose.

Sounds about right for a Willard supporter. Just twist reality to fit your agenda, no big deal, it's all good in Romneyhood.

Unfugginbelievable.

VET74 wrote: You should really drink a cup of coffee and put your glasses on before you come on here in the morning. And if you deny that there isn't a strategy for elections then you are as dumb as I originally thought you were.

Now what?

9/9/2012 9:08 AM

oldfart wrote: Holy crap, in one thread you make the argument that if you've got nothing to hide, it should be OK for the government to record your life. In this thread, you are making the argument that a candidate for President shouldn't have to detail his plans for the country, because, well, he might lose.

Sounds about right for a Willard supporter. Just twist reality to fit your agenda, no big deal, it's all good in Romneyhood.

Unfugginbelievable.

VET74 wrote: You should really drink a cup of coffee and put your glasses on before you come on here in the morning. And if you deny that there isn't a strategy for elections then you are as dumb as I originally thought you were.

oldfart wrote:

9/9/2012 9:26 AM

VET74 wrote: You should really drink a cup of coffee and put your glasses on before you come on here in the morning. And if you deny that there isn't a strategy for elections then you are as dumb as I originally thought you were.

oldfart wrote:

VET74 wrote:

I gotta hand it to you, at least you have a sense of humor.

9/9/2012 9:42 AM

You know you're in trouble when you have to demand participation from your "fans".

Now what?

9/9/2012 1:26 PM

Mitt does have a problem, and I am not going to argue it or try and sell anyone on any particular candidate, but Mitt's number's aren't adding up and on that, Sam is correct.

Pre-conventions (both), Obama and Romney were essentially tied on a rolling average on Real Clear Politics. Real Clear Politics is conservative leaning, something they don't hide, but they're also honest in regards to polling and the data shows that.

Post-RNC polling showed a minimal to almost no bounce, which is relatively unheard of.
Romney got only a small bounce in the announcement of Paul Ryan as his running mate, that's how he drew neck and neck with Obama. Typically, after a VP announcement and then your convention, you should be able to make significant gains on an incumbent who is not sitting on a positive economy, has mid to low approvals and unemployment above 8%, but Mitt couldn't do that, all he could do is draw up next to Obama.

Post-DNC, Obama is now surging ahead with as much as +4 and +5 points in some polling, including the conservative leaning Rasmussen (+4).

As for battleground states, Mitt has a problem there, as Sam mentioned. Mitt would almost literally have to run the table on all the up for grabs battle ground states, including Ohio, NC and Florida....completely diverse bases. You would almost have to have three separate platforms in order to win all three. That's a hell of a song and a dance.
By the way, Mitt has been way out organized by the Obama camp in many of these states.

I am not going to argue this, policies, parties or even choice, only that Sam is correct in the math right now is going against Mitt, and getting worse

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/08/sept-8-conventions-may-put-obama-in-front-runners-position/





This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. - FDR




"Grant money is not pork" - Rep Allen West

9/9/2012 3:04 PM

Let's see where we end up in a month or so...after these 2 have a go at the Media War that you just know they're going to wage...

1 guy buried himself with his own words 4 years ago.

1 guy buried himself with his biz success and how he ran Mass.

Good luck to both of'em.

Matthes. He's SO Hot this year. Matthes.

9/9/2012 3:24 PM

The title says Romney in trouble , I think its us the citizens of this country are in trouble regardless of who gets elected this year.I have never had less faith in both parties than i do this election year.

9/9/2012 4:47 PM

MR. X wrote: The title says Romney in trouble , I think its us the citizens of this country are in trouble regardless of who gets elected this year.I have never had less faith in both parties than i do this election year.

I saw a funny John McCain quote today: "Congress has an 11% approval rating, but I've never met one of those 11% who believe in us."

9/9/2012 5:57 PM
Edited Date/Time: 9/9/2012 5:57 PM

VET74 wrote: Why should he come out and say it. Obama will continue his class warfare so that he get's elected, then he will turn around and tell everyone, sorry, I was left with no other choice but to raise taxes on everyone to pay for the social programs.

This is as much a chess match as anything, and I'm sure he's going to minimize tactical errors against his opponent...and for that I don't blame him.

The rich at the end of the day will continue to pay more than their fair share, while the poor and middle class continue to get pick pocketed by overpriced energy & consumables...meanwhile singing the praises of Obama, the one who's policies take their little bit of disposable income. This is the part of the argument I don't get.

For the most part, this post is accurate. Except for the part where this is actually a real election. Odds are, the winner has already been decided.

Part of Speech: Noun

Definition: A loser, poser, lame-ass. One who talks the talk, but could never walk the walk.

One who talks shit and doesn't back it up, but rather ends up eating their shit in return. A fuckin 'tard.


Usage: Slang

9/9/2012 5:58 PM

MR. X wrote: The title says Romney in trouble , I think its us the citizens of this country are in trouble regardless of who gets elected this year.I have never had less faith in both parties than i do this election year.

Yep.

Part of Speech: Noun

Definition: A loser, poser, lame-ass. One who talks the talk, but could never walk the walk.

One who talks shit and doesn't back it up, but rather ends up eating their shit in return. A fuckin 'tard.


Usage: Slang

9/9/2012 5:59 PM

MR. X wrote: The title says Romney in trouble , I think its us the citizens of this country are in trouble regardless of who gets elected this year.I have never had less faith in both parties than i do this election year.

SShaw490 wrote: I saw a funny John McCain quote today: "Congress has an 11% approval rating, but I've never met one of those 11% who believe in us."

Funny how McCain now wants to act like he's our friend. This is the same bastard that tried laying the Freedom of Internet Act on us? Fuck him.

Part of Speech: Noun

Definition: A loser, poser, lame-ass. One who talks the talk, but could never walk the walk.

One who talks shit and doesn't back it up, but rather ends up eating their shit in return. A fuckin 'tard.


Usage: Slang

9/9/2012 6:57 PM

MR. X wrote: The title says Romney in trouble , I think its us the citizens of this country are in trouble regardless of who gets elected this year.I have never had less faith in both parties than i do this election year.

SShaw490 wrote: I saw a funny John McCain quote today: "Congress has an 11% approval rating, but I've never met one of those 11% who believe in us."

Jabroni wrote: Funny how McCain now wants to act like he's our friend. This is the same bastard that tried laying the Freedom of Internet Act on us? Fuck him.

C'mon, you gotta have a sense of humor, even if you don't like the guy who said something funny.

9/10/2012 8:15 AM

The entire premise of this thread is ridiculous. Romney is not "in trouble", Obama is "in trouble". The fact that the race is this close shows how vulnerable Obama is in this election. An incumbent should easily win. In recent history the only elected incumbent to lose without a significant third party opponent was Carter. This should be a cake walk for Obama , but it's not. Here is a little perspective.

Today's RCP avg. is Obama 48 to Romney's 46

on 9/10/04 Bush was 49 to Kerry's 43.2

on 10/6/96 Clinton 56 to Dole's 34

The indisputable facts are this is going to be a very close election with the very strong possibility of the the incumbent losing.

9/10/2012 8:21 AM

Gabby you act like Willard isn't going to get his ass handed to him in the debates. Never mind that Willard also had a shot to latch on to the one group that could help him, and he fucked that up but good. Just imagine if he'd have actually gotten that Ron Paul endorsement you were so certain he would get. Did you notice where he's backpedaling on Obamacare now too? Face it, there's not enough Obama hate for Willard to win. He needs some Willard love and there just isn't any to be found.

Now what?

9/10/2012 8:31 AM

oldfart wrote: Gabby you act like Willard isn't going to get his ass handed to him in the debates. Never mind that Willard also had a shot to latch on to the one group that could help him, and he fucked that up but good. Just imagine if he'd have actually gotten that Ron Paul endorsement you were so certain he would get. Did you notice where he's backpedaling on Obamacare now too? Face it, there's not enough Obama hate for Willard to win. He needs some Willard love and there just isn't any to be found.

You are correct that the debates will be a big part of what happens on election night, as far as Romney getting "his ass handed to him", well I guess we will just have to watch them and see. My expectation is that Romney and Ryan will seal the deal with the debates but as we always say though "that is why they line up", right?

9/10/2012 8:37 AM

Are the debates where he'll give specifics? Or is he just going to stay on the attack with lies and avoid having to actually tell people what he'll do? Not sure I understand the appeal of a guy that does nothing but lie and won't say what he'll do different. I guess that works for some.........

btw, this was the last guy to try what Willard espouses.

Now what?

9/10/2012 8:44 AM
Edited Date/Time: 9/10/2012 8:44 AM

Are the debates where he'll give specifics? Or is he just going to stay on the attack with lies and avoid having to actually tell people what he'll do? Not sure I understand the appeal of a guy that does nothing but lie and won't say what he'll do different. I guess that works for some.........

when you say he'll here you are referring to Obama, right? Like I said we will see.

9/11/2012 1:21 AM
Edited Date/Time: 9/11/2012 1:30 AM

How did I know the second post on the thread would be from Old Fart (I capitalized them) Now, I will go back and read.

Ohh, BTW Mr Old fart. Has Ron Paul come out and turned Libertarian? You would think if he is carrying your touch, he would really be carrying your torch.

Sometimes, Gravity just sucks.

9/11/2012 1:31 AM

How did I know the second post on the thread would be from Old Fart (I capitalized them) Now, I will go back and read.

Ohh, BTW Mr Old fart. Has Ron Paul come out and turned Libertarian?

Sometimes, Gravity just sucks.

9/11/2012 6:51 AM

MR. X wrote: The title says Romney in trouble , I think its us the citizens of this country are in trouble regardless of who gets elected this year.I have never had less faith in both parties than i do this election year.

No shit, I think Romney will be doing just fine regardless of whether he wins or loses. Damned shame what we have to chose between.

9/11/2012 6:53 AM

16 trillion and yet the sheep will still continue to defend all things O.
Post a Reply to: Romney in trouble

To post, please join, log in or connect to Vital using your Facebook profile Fb_connect_sm