The Swing States 2012

[Article 15]

Oh look.....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/210788-why-romney-will-beat-obama.html#post4890973

 

[Article 15]

How about a "no matter who is nominated they will beat Obama" post?

Whomever becomes the Republican Nominee will beat Obama. He's going to be a one termer, just like his political doppleganger Jimmy Carter. Sorry. He has a record now and it stinks. Hope and Change ain't gonna work again....

 

[Fang]

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.

I think it's time this country considers the popular vote. As a Maryland resident and a Republican my vote is pretty much wasted. But, I go vote anyway.

 

[Artevelde]

You are correct.

I knew you'd see it my way.

A governor with solid credentials beats the snot out of an obviously incompetent sitting president who has not been able to gain traction making the country better in 3 years.
Sounds about right.

Nice try at selective editing

Reagan beat Carter because Carters approval plummeted as the Iran Hostage Crisis dragged on

Reagan also had charisma and an ability to relate to the average American that Romney will never have

Barring a major catastrophe, Obama will win in a landslide

Carter's approval ratings went down for a variety of reasons. He was a very weak President without clear direction. To blame his defeat on the Iranian hostage crisis is a bit far-fetched. He lost by a huge landslide.

 

[Full-Auto]

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.

I think it's time this country considers the popular vote. As a Maryland resident and a Republican my vote is pretty much wasted. But, I go vote anyway.

That would be a grave mistake.

 

[Zander]

Oh look.....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/210788-why-romney-will-beat-obama.html#post4890973

I felt that way 2 months ago when I posted that, and I still hope it will be the case. But in this thread (that is what we are discussing here Art) I stated clearly that I think the race is too close to call.

There are a few here from both sides that are acting very cocky, I am not one of them. I expect a very close election and I never underestimate the power of incumbency.

 

[rightwinger]

I knew you'd see it my way.

A governor with solid credentials beats the snot out of an obviously incompetent sitting president who has not been able to gain traction making the country better in 3 years.
Sounds about right.

Nice try at selective editing

Reagan beat Carter because Carters approval plummeted as the Iran Hostage Crisis dragged on

Reagan also had charisma and an ability to relate to the average American that Romney will never have

Barring a major catastrophe, Obama will win in a landslide

Carter's approval ratings went down for a variety of reasons. He was a very weak President without clear direction. To blame his defeat on the Iranian hostage crisis is a bit far-fetched. He lost by a huge landslide.

Check out Carters approval numbers before and after the Hostage crisis. He was considered weak because he let the Iranians push him around.

 

[Zander]

I really don't know why people like Zander and Rabbi are posting so many predictions that Romney is going to clean house, when all the evidence points the other direction. I understand WANTING Romney to win, but what's the point of saying that he's GOING to win when clearly he most likely isn't? Don't you realize how silly that's going to make you look next November?

Do you know how to read? Show me where I predict that Romney is going to win. I'll wait.....

Does it have to be a post from this thread?

Yes

 

[rightwinger]

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.

I think it's time this country considers the popular vote. As a Maryland resident and a Republican my vote is pretty much wasted. But, I go vote anyway.

We will never go to a popular vote. The states that benefit with additional clout due to the electoral process have enough votes to block an amendment.

 

[Zander]

Nice try at selective editing

Reagan beat Carter because Carters approval plummeted as the Iran Hostage Crisis dragged on

Reagan also had charisma and an ability to relate to the average American that Romney will never have

Barring a major catastrophe, Obama will win in a landslide

Carter's approval ratings went down for a variety of reasons. He was a very weak President without clear direction. To blame his defeat on the Iranian hostage crisis is a bit far-fetched. He lost by a huge landslide.

Check out Carters approval numbers before and after the Hostage crisis. He was considered weak because he let the Iranians push him around.

That was a factor, but there are other reasons too. The economy was in horrible shape- remember the "misery index"? The nation was going through a crisis of confidence in our leadership after Watergate, and he in his soft little sissy voice he is on TV beseeching Americans to "wear a sweater" (and bend over). He was a weak wimp.

 

[The Rabbi]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-tZq4CWLi0&feature=youtu.be

 

[JakeStarkey]

Zander has the bit correct. Carter would have lost anyway. The Iranian hostage crisis was to Carter what the dispelling by force of the Bonus Army was to Hoover. America needed an upbeat communicator of American greatness in whom it could trust. Carter did not provide that.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Zander has the bit correct. Carter would have lost anyway. The Iranian hostage crisis was to Carter what the dispelling by force of the Bonus Army was to Hoover. America needed an upbeat communicator of American greatness in whom it could trust. Carter did not provide that.

What'd Carter win one state (Minnesota) off the top of my head? I think the economy was more likely the primary reason. And that's when the top tax rate was 70 percent for all of you OWSers who know nothing about history.

 

[sealybobo]

Nice try at selective editing

Reagan beat Carter because Carters approval plummeted as the Iran Hostage Crisis dragged on

Reagan also had charisma and an ability to relate to the average American that Romney will never have

Barring a major catastrophe, Obama will win in a landslide

Carter's approval ratings went down for a variety of reasons. He was a very weak President without clear direction. To blame his defeat on the Iranian hostage crisis is a bit far-fetched. He lost by a huge landslide.

Check out Carters approval numbers before and after the Hostage crisis. He was considered weak because he let the Iranians push him around.

This is when I learned just how sleezy the GOP is when they made a deal with the Iranians to hold the hostages until after the election and then a year later they paid them off with guns. Remember the Iran/Contra affair? Ollie North?

Remember HW Bush was the head of the CIA? He was able to make this deal with Iran and his reward was the VP position.

 

[candycorn]

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.

I think it's time this country considers the popular vote. As a Maryland resident and a Republican my vote is pretty much wasted. But, I go vote anyway.

We will never go to a popular vote. The states that benefit with additional clout due to the electoral process have enough votes to block an amendment.

Yeah, I think it has to eventually become both the electoral and the popular vote to gain the Presidency.

 

[JoeB131]

Zander has the bit correct. Carter would have lost anyway. The Iranian hostage crisis was to Carter what the dispelling by force of the Bonus Army was to Hoover. America needed an upbeat communicator of American greatness in whom it could trust. Carter did not provide that.

Carter didn't lose so much as Reagan won.

Unfortunately, the GOP is so far away from Reagan now that no one recognizes it anymore.

 

[Mac1958]

Zander has the bit correct. Carter would have lost anyway. The Iranian hostage crisis was to Carter what the dispelling by force of the Bonus Army was to Hoover. America needed an upbeat communicator of American greatness in whom it could trust. Carter did not provide that.

Carter didn't lose so much as Reagan won.

Unfortunately, the GOP is so far away from Reagan now that no one recognizes it anymore.

Yup.

Funny how two icons, JFK and Reagan, would not be welcome in their own parties at this point. Well, maybe not funny, more like sad.

.

 

[Article 15]

I think the economy was more likely the primary reason. And that's when the top tax rate was 70 percent for all of you OWSers who know nothing about history.

...and the top marginal rate was that and higher in the 40's, 50's and 60's...

*pop*

There goes that inane point.

 

[JoeB131]

Zander has the bit correct. Carter would have lost anyway. The Iranian hostage crisis was to Carter what the dispelling by force of the Bonus Army was to Hoover. America needed an upbeat communicator of American greatness in whom it could trust. Carter did not provide that.

Carter didn't lose so much as Reagan won.

Unfortunately, the GOP is so far away from Reagan now that no one recognizes it anymore.

Yup.

Funny how two icons, JFK and Reagan, would not be welcome in their own parties at this point. Well, maybe not funny, more like sad.

.

I think what's scarier is how much it has been dumbed down.

I remember watching the Carter/Ford debates, and how much detail and policy depth were actually discussed by the two men (who, by the way, were probably as close to each other as the parties have gotten.)

Compared that to the Bush/Kerry debate, where they sounded like they were talking to a room full of 9 year olds.

 

[The Rabbi]

I think the economy was more likely the primary reason. And that's when the top tax rate was 70 percent for all of you OWSers who know nothing about history.

...and the top marginal rate was that and higher in the 40's, 50's and 60's...

*pop*

There goes that inane point.

You don't learn quickly, do you?