The Swing States 2012

[auditor0007]

If the economy and gas prices worsen,then obana will lose,no matter who.
then we can prosecute your god when hes out for his crimes.

Ah yes, the prosecutorial dipshit mumbo jumbo from the whacko of the day.

 

[Artevelde]

An election for President in the United States is not a national event. It is a collection of 51 separate elections. There is no way Romney is going to carry New York or California, and there is no way Obama is going to carry Texas or Mississippi. So the campaigns will focus on winning the swing states. Here they are:

Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Whichever candidate wins more of these states will win the election.

Romney needs to win almost all of these in order to win.

Not really. About half will suffice. Same goes for Obama. The country is pretty evenly split.

 

[candycorn]

Not so. The I4 corridor from Tampa to Orlando and south is open for a fight. Rubio would give MR the edge for sure.

Florida is up for grabs.

And the airwaves were filled today of Governor Scott signing the budget which increases education spending.

Scott endorsed Rick Perry as the next President ... what he signed was lip service for education after all their, Rs other priorities were taken care of first.

showcasing 1% Scott with 1% Romney may lose its appeal to the 99% Floridians that are concerned about the affordability of education and health-care.

Yeah, I don't think Florida is going to be as close as it appears from the outside.

 

[JoeB131]

So much revisionism on your part about Reagan, so much bullshit on Romney.

Dude, the things you revile started under and were encouraged by Reagan. The private equity guys and corporate raiders you despise all began in the 80s and were venerated by the Reagan Republicans. The Moral Majority was at its zenith under Reagan. And he broke the air traffic controllers. Greed was the ethos of the 80s.

But you keep keep feeding yourself the mythology if it helps you sleep at night.

Point was, it wasn't as bad as it was now, and you know it.

The inmates have taken over the asylum. The only thing now is that you people on the Wall Street Crazy wing are hoping that you can fool the people on the Church Street Wing of the nuthouse into letting you run the place.

I'm just trying to get you all back in your cells, before you do any more damage...

The thing about Reagan was, he wasn't a fanatic, like the current bunch. There were points where he could sit down opposite the table from Tip O'Neill and get stuff done.

As opposed to the current bunch of jokers, who won't even go along with Obama when he adopts their ideas. "Mandates... why, we are totally against mandates now!"

 

[The Rabbi]

So much revisionism on your part about Reagan, so much bullshit on Romney.

Dude, the things you revile started under and were encouraged by Reagan. The private equity guys and corporate raiders you despise all began in the 80s and were venerated by the Reagan Republicans. The Moral Majority was at its zenith under Reagan. And he broke the air traffic controllers. Greed was the ethos of the 80s.

But you keep keep feeding yourself the mythology if it helps you sleep at night.

Point was, it wasn't as bad as it was now, and you know it.

The inmates have taken over the asylum. The only thing now is that you people on the Wall Street Crazy wing are hoping that you can fool the people on the Church Street Wing of the nuthouse into letting you run the place.

I'm just trying to get you all back in your cells, before you do any more damage...

The thing about Reagan was, he wasn't a fanatic, like the current bunch. There were points where he could sit down opposite the table from Tip O'Neill and get stuff done.

As opposed to the current bunch of jokers, who won't even go along with Obama when he adopts their ideas. "Mandates... why, we are totally against mandates now!"

Were you actually alive then?
Inflation was double digit. Unemployment was double digit. Interest rates were double digit. The Japs were eating our industrial base and the Saudis were buying everything that didnt move. Chrysler was bankrupt (some things never change). And a bunch of towel heads in Iran were holding our hostages and we were powerless to do anything.
Yeah, it was much worse then.
Reagan was criticised as out of touch and hands off. Remember all those jokes about hard work never killed anyone but he's not taking any chances? Remember the bombing starts in 5 minutes? Remember the Evil Empire, Star Wars?
Yeah the Dems were different. They were actually interested in good governance and what was good for the country, not just winning. Clinton changed all that btw with "we just gotta win now".

 

[JoeB131]

If this is the product of careful thought you need a new gig.

Romney is tracking Reagan pretty well.
Reagan was tarred for being in bed with the Christian right. Reagan was a strong supporter of Israel and made no apologies about it.

No, Actually, Reagan actually could stand up to the Zionists, in a way Romney can't.

Despite all their whining about two SS guys buried there, Reagan went to Bittburg cemetary.

Despite all their whining about it, Reagan sold advanced weapons systems to Saudi Arabia.

Less credibly, he also supported Saddam against Iraq when the Israelis told him it was a terrible idea.

Toro is right: lots of ignorance and revisionism.
To you Romney is the guy who shipped your job overseas. But that is your fault, not Romney's. If you had finished high school you wouldnt have this problem.

Guy, I have a college degree. I'm also APICS and Six Sigma trained. So pretty much, at the top of my feild, which is purchasing. Not to mention being a veteran. I've never had problems finding jobs, that isn't the point.

Oh, another thing Reagan did the new bunch wouldn't go for. During the late 1970's and early 1980's, the Japanese were engaged in the practice of "dumping", which is to sell cheap goods here at a loss for the sole purpose of driving their American competitors out of business. Reagan was the one who put a stop to a lot of that shit, which is why a lot of the Japanese manufacturers opened plants in the US in the 1980's.

Point is, Reagan was probably pro-Corporation, but he was pro-America, first.

Romney. Well, basically, if you ain't a rich Mormon, he doesn't give a fuck if you live or die.

 

[JoeB131]

Were you actually alive then?
Inflation was double digit. Unemployment was double digit. Interest rates were double digit. The Japs were eating our industrial base and the Saudis were buying everything that didnt move. Chrysler was bankrupt (some things never change). And a bunch of towel heads in Iran were holding our hostages and we were powerless to do anything.
Yeah, it was much worse then.

What does that have to do with anything I just said? Actually, having lived through the Carter/Reagan Recession and the Bush/Obama recession, I would say the current one actually is worse. So the Chinese are eating our industrial base instead of the Japanese. I'd find that more worrisome, the Japanese at least shared our values.

Reagan was criticised as out of touch and hands off. Remember all those jokes about hard work never killed anyone but he's not taking any chances? Remember the bombing starts in 5 minutes? Remember the Evil Empire, Star Wars?

Again, what does that have to do with the point I made. Yeah, Reagan said "Evil Empire", but he also sat down in a room and hammered out agreements with the USSR. He pandered to the religious nutbags, but then he appointed sensible moderates to the SCOTUS. (Scalia being the exception.)

Yeah the Dems were different. They were actually interested in good governance and what was good for the country, not just winning. Clinton changed all that btw with "we just gotta win now".

Actually, the thing was, Clinton did sit down with the GOP and hammer out agreements... so that doesn't wash. The obstructionist element right now is Boehner and his inability to lead his caucus, really.

 

[Mac1958]

The obstructionist element right now is Boehner and his inability to lead his caucus, really.

It should be interesting to look back in a few years and learn how Boehner felt about his tenure. Did he lead the way he would have liked to, or did he just work to save his ass by giving into the crazies? Did he consider them a positive or a negative? Did he wish he had chosen another line of work rather than be associated with them? Did he think they were the driving force behind the ruination of his party?

Looking forward to finding out.

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Boehner's term as Speaker and his reputation has been damaged by Tea Party member obstructionism.

 

[Toro]

Florida is up for grabs.

And the airwaves were filled today of Governor Scott signing the budget which increases education spending.

Scott endorsed Rick Perry as the next President ... what he signed was lip service for education after all their, Rs other priorities were taken care of first.

showcasing 1% Scott with 1% Romney may lose its appeal to the 99% Floridians that are concerned about the affordability of education and health-care.

Yeah, I don't think Florida is going to be as close as it appears from the outside.

Why? This is a Republican state. Obama won it by a few points last time. 2010 at all levels was an anti-Obama vote in FL. There was tremendous anger. That's mitigated today, but it's residual. The economy is stabilizing but is still poor. And the Democrats are pretty inept as an organization statewide. Remember, Rubio was down by 25 points before overhauling Crist, so it can be volatile too.

This state is wide open.

 

[Big Fitz]

An election for President in the United States is not a national event. It is a collection of 51 separate elections. There is no way Romney is going to carry New York or California, and there is no way Obama is going to carry Texas or Mississippi. So the campaigns will focus on winning the swing states. Here they are:

Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Whichever candidate wins more of these states will win the election.

Wisconsin is completely up in the air. I wouldn't bet a penny on how we're going to end up by the end of our long long summer.

It depends completely on how bitter and angry the WEAC/Walker fight gets. Right now the 4 GOP senators being recalled are kicking ass in polls versus their opponents, and so is Walker and Kleefisch. WEAC just sent a 'drop dead' letter to Walker publically after they were called out for scrubbing their site of information showing that Walker's reforms have helped the state more than the previous 15 years of WEAC control.

Yeah, WI is going to be an angry state, and the angrier the populace gets in supporting Walker et all, the less likely Obama's going to win this state.

Oh and the economy sucks so hard if it doesn't improve, he's not got a chance.

 

[JoeB131]

An election for President in the United States is not a national event. It is a collection of 51 separate elections. There is no way Romney is going to carry New York or California, and there is no way Obama is going to carry Texas or Mississippi. So the campaigns will focus on winning the swing states. Here they are:

Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Whichever candidate wins more of these states will win the election.

Wisconsin is completely up in the air. I wouldn't bet a penny on how we're going to end up by the end of our long long summer.

It depends completely on how bitter and angry the WEAC/Walker fight gets. Right now the 4 GOP senators being recalled are kicking ass in polls versus their opponents, and so is Walker and Kleefisch. WEAC just sent a 'drop dead' letter to Walker publically after they were called out for scrubbing their site of information showing that Walker's reforms have helped the state more than the previous 15 years of WEAC control.

Yeah, WI is going to be an angry state, and the angrier the populace gets in supporting Walker et all, the less likely Obama's going to win this state.

Oh and the economy sucks so hard if it doesn't improve, he's not got a chance.

Let's get real. The GOP hasn't taken Wisconsin's electors since 1984.

 

[Big Fitz]

Wisconsin is completely up in the air. I wouldn't bet a penny on how we're going to end up by the end of our long long summer.

It depends completely on how bitter and angry the WEAC/Walker fight gets. Right now the 4 GOP senators being recalled are kicking ass in polls versus their opponents, and so is Walker and Kleefisch. WEAC just sent a 'drop dead' letter to Walker publically after they were called out for scrubbing their site of information showing that Walker's reforms have helped the state more than the previous 15 years of WEAC control.

Yeah, WI is going to be an angry state, and the angrier the populace gets in supporting Walker et all, the less likely Obama's going to win this state.

Oh and the economy sucks so hard if it doesn't improve, he's not got a chance.

Let's get real. The GOP hasn't taken Wisconsin's electors since 1984.

Yes, thanks to Milwaukee and Dane county corruption. Trust me, the rest of the state is sick of these two counties dominating the state with their urban stupidity and entitlement junkies. I live here. People are NOT happy with the DNC and their Public Sector Union support. Even the Private sector unions are PIIIIIISSSED at the DNC thanks to the tar and feathering of Gogebic Taconite and running them out on a rail. That's a lot of money and support gone from them in this state.

The protests have soured much good will against them. I know more than a few teachers and school retirees and they're not happy with WEAC either.

 

[Artevelde]

While I agree that it is unlikely that Obama will lose Wisconsin, the fact that such a normally safe Democratic state is still unsure is not a good sign for him. But it's still very early days.

 

[rightwinger]

So much revisionism on your part about Reagan, so much bullshit on Romney.

Dude, the things you revile started under and were encouraged by Reagan. The private equity guys and corporate raiders you despise all began in the 80s and were venerated by the Reagan Republicans. The Moral Majority was at its zenith under Reagan. And he broke the air traffic controllers. Greed was the ethos of the 80s.

But you keep keep feeding yourself the mythology if it helps you sleep at night.

Point was, it wasn't as bad as it was now, and you know it.

The inmates have taken over the asylum. The only thing now is that you people on the Wall Street Crazy wing are hoping that you can fool the people on the Church Street Wing of the nuthouse into letting you run the place.

I'm just trying to get you all back in your cells, before you do any more damage...

The thing about Reagan was, he wasn't a fanatic, like the current bunch. There were points where he could sit down opposite the table from Tip O'Neill and get stuff done.

As opposed to the current bunch of jokers, who won't even go along with Obama when he adopts their ideas. "Mandates... why, we are totally against mandates now!"

Were you actually alive then?
Inflation was double digit. Unemployment was double digit. Interest rates were double digit. The Japs were eating our industrial base and the Saudis were buying everything that didnt move. Chrysler was bankrupt (some things never change). And a bunch of towel heads in Iran were holding our hostages and we were powerless to do anything.
Yeah, it was much worse then.
Reagan was criticised as out of touch and hands off. Remember all those jokes about hard work never killed anyone but he's not taking any chances? Remember the bombing starts in 5 minutes? Remember the Evil Empire, Star Wars?
Yeah the Dems were different. They were actually interested in good governance and what was good for the country, not just winning. Clinton changed all that btw with "we just gotta win now".

Actually, it was Gingrich who changed things. Up till then, compromise and the art of the deal was the way things were done. Gingrich brought in a take no prisoners, compromise is for pussies mentality. They instituted around the clock investigations of Clinton and tied him up in litigation for eight years.
With Obama, they took a different tact of complete obstruction. The Senate went from 51% to approve a bill to 60% just to get it to the floor.
Then Republicans gloat that Democrats can't get anything done

 

[Mac1958]

.

They made a good point on "Morning Joe" today, that Romney is close in the polls directly after taking a pretty severe beating in the primaries. We'll see what happens after the dust settles and the regular one-on-one campaign begins.

Hopefully those of us uninterested in either of these two guys or parties will find a decent alternative party candidate then, as well...

.

 

[JoeB131]

.

They made a good point on "Morning Joe" today, that Romney is close in the polls directly after taking a pretty severe beating in the primaries. We'll see what happens after the dust settles and the regular one-on-one campaign begins.

Hopefully those of us uninterested in either of these two guys or parties will find a decent alternative party candidate then, as well...

.

I don't put a whole lot of stock in the "polls are close" now. When McCain sealed the deal in 2008, he pulled ahead for a week or so in the RCP Average, and he pulled ahead for a week or so after he picked Palin and the Rep. Convention.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

.

They made a good point on "Morning Joe" today, that Romney is close in the polls directly after taking a pretty severe beating in the primaries. We'll see what happens after the dust settles and the regular one-on-one campaign begins.

Hopefully those of us uninterested in either of these two guys or parties will find a decent alternative party candidate then, as well...

.

I don't put a whole lot of stock in the "polls are close" now. When McCain sealed the deal in 2008, he pulled ahead for a week or so in the RCP Average, and he pulled ahead for a week or so after he picked Palin and the Rep. Convention.

And he likely would have won if the election was held at that time. McCain/Palin had a good lead before the so called financial market collapse and before the media zeroed in on Palin calling the very experienced mayor and governor and bottom of the ticket "inexperienced" while somehow they didn't have those same concerns about the community organizer who was the top of their ticket. We're going to be vigilant against lies and misconceptions this time around ole Joe. Count on it.

 

[GoneBezerk]

North Carolina depends on how many black voters Democrats can pay and bus to the polls.

Colorado depends on how many illegals can vote around Denver and how many college students around Boulder vote a handful of times.

Ohio is interesting because a Republican Gov is fixing the state and Obamination is trying to take the credit, like a typical asshole.

 

[rightwinger]

.

They made a good point on "Morning Joe" today, that Romney is close in the polls directly after taking a pretty severe beating in the primaries. We'll see what happens after the dust settles and the regular one-on-one campaign begins.

Hopefully those of us uninterested in either of these two guys or parties will find a decent alternative party candidate then, as well...

.

I don't put a whole lot of stock in the "polls are close" now. When McCain sealed the deal in 2008, he pulled ahead for a week or so in the RCP Average, and he pulled ahead for a week or so after he picked Palin and the Rep. Convention.

And he likely would have won if the election was held at that time. McCain/Palin had a good lead before the so called financial market collapse and before the media zeroed in on Palin calling the very experienced mayor and governor and bottom of the ticket "inexperienced" while somehow they didn't have those same concerns about the community organizer who was the top of their ticket. We're going to be vigilant against lies and misconceptions this time around ole Joe. Count on it.

Obama was able to go through a dozen debates and countless interviews by reporters a lot tougher than Katie Couric without looking like a mindless moron. McCain was way behind in the polls and needed Palin to bump his polling. Palin helped for a few weeks before it became evident how completely clueless she was on national and international affairs