The Swing States 2012

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Many smart pubs, dems, and indies would let that happen if every state gave to the party their winner in each congressional district, and the the state to the overall party winner in that state.

 

[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.

You don't learn quickly, do you?

I picked up on your pussyness right away.

 

[Artevelde]

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.

Pretty farsighted of George H. W. Bush to make this deal with the Iranian leadership years before the Iranian Revolution and before the hostage crisis (remember he was CIA-director in 1976-77). Just one of the many complete falsehoods in your posting. Do facts matter at all to you?

 

[The Rabbi]

...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?

I picked up on your pussyness right away.

Deflection. It's all you got.
Remember that the tax structure of the 40s was very different. But you've been told this a dozen times or more. Thus a slow learner.

 

[Article 15]

Remember that the tax structure of the 40s was very different. But you've been told this a dozen times or more. Thus a slow learner.

Link?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You don't learn quickly, do you?

I picked up on your pussyness right away.

Deflection. It's all you got.
Remember that the tax structure of the 40s was very different. But you've been told this a dozen times or more. Thus a slow learner.

Link.

 

[candycorn]

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.

I will say you've got that one right...

You would think the 2012 GOP is on a different planet.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

I will say you've got that one right...

You would think the 2012 GOP is on a different planet.

Hm, Reagan was for smaller gov't and lower taxes. He opposed gov't funded abortions and a strong foreign policy.
Which part of that is not supported by most of the GOP today?

 

[rightwinger]

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.

I will say you've got that one right...

You would think the 2012 GOP is on a different planet.

Hm, Reagan was for smaller gov't and lower taxes. He opposed gov't funded abortions and a strong foreign policy.
Which part of that is not supported by most of the GOP today?

Reagan increased the size of government, tripled the debt, wanted to eliminate nuclear weapons......is that the GOP of today?

Sounds like Obama

 

[The Rabbi]

I will say you've got that one right...

You would think the 2012 GOP is on a different planet.

Hm, Reagan was for smaller gov't and lower taxes. He opposed gov't funded abortions and a strong foreign policy.
Which part of that is not supported by most of the GOP today?

Reagan increased the size of government, tripled the debt, wanted to eliminate nuclear weapons......is that the GOP of today?

Sounds like Obama

As usual you are wrong.
Reagan's Democratic Congress tripled the debt and increased the size of gov't. He increased teh military dramatically and declared the Soviet Union an Evil Empire.
If he sounded like Obama he would have increased debt by tenfold and apologized to the Soviets for US adventurism and imperialism.
Actually that is pretty much what Obama did. Obama's deficits are larger than Reagan's entire budget.

 

[Dragon]

You guys are just pissin' in the wind. Barring some unpredictable disaster, Obama is going to win in a landslide.

That's probably the biggest reason why Mitt Romney is going to be the Republican nominee. The GOP first string decided to sit this one out, knowing they'd lose.

 

[The Rabbi]

You guys are just pissin' in the wind. Barring some unpredictable disaster, Obama is going to win in a landslide.

That's probably the biggest reason why Mitt Romney is going to be the Republican nominee. The GOP first string decided to sit this one out, knowing they'd lose.

Obama was a predicatble disaster. After November he will be just piss in the wind.

 

[Mac1958]

You guys are just pissin' in the wind. Barring some unpredictable disaster, Obama is going to win in a landslide.

That's probably the biggest reason why Mitt Romney is going to be the Republican nominee. The GOP first string decided to sit this one out, knowing they'd lose.

I wonder if one reason why the better candidates didn't run is the current state of the GOP, the influence still felt by the Tea Party. I can imagine some simplistic Tea Party type trying to shove some silly "pledge" in Christie's face, and having it shoved up his own ass.

Probably wouldn't help Christie get the nomination. So why bother.

.

 

[The Rabbi]

You guys are just pissin' in the wind. Barring some unpredictable disaster, Obama is going to win in a landslide.

That's probably the biggest reason why Mitt Romney is going to be the Republican nominee. The GOP first string decided to sit this one out, knowing they'd lose.

I wonder if one reason why the better candidates didn't run is the current state of the GOP, the influence still felt by the Tea Party. I can imagine some simplistic Tea Party type trying to shove some silly "pledge" in Christie's face, and having it shoved up his own ass.

Probably wouldn't help Christie get the nomination. So why bother.

.

Which candidate would you consider "better"?
This ought to be good. Keep in mind Joe Lieberman is really a Dem.

 

[Mac1958]

You guys are just pissin' in the wind. Barring some unpredictable disaster, Obama is going to win in a landslide.

That's probably the biggest reason why Mitt Romney is going to be the Republican nominee. The GOP first string decided to sit this one out, knowing they'd lose.

I wonder if one reason why the better candidates didn't run is the current state of the GOP, the influence still felt by the Tea Party. I can imagine some simplistic Tea Party type trying to shove some silly "pledge" in Christie's face, and having it shoved up his own ass.

Probably wouldn't help Christie get the nomination. So why bother.

.

Which candidate would you consider "better"?
This ought to be good. Keep in mind Joe Lieberman is really a Dem.

Oh, I guess you hadn't heard of Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels, Jeb Bush, John Thune, those guys. See, they're Republicans too, and they decided not to get into the race for some strange reason. I guess that got by you somehow.

But there's more - funny thing is, a bunch of dissatisfied, frustrated, pissed off Republicans got on their knees trying to get these guys to run but they were told to pound sand.

Amazing you missed all that, it was great fun.

Looking forward to the denial, diversion and spin. I wonder which tactic will be used first. Very exciting! Ready, set, go!

.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Which candidate would you consider "better"?

Jindal, Rubio, Christie, Pawlenty, Palin and a few others were far far stronger candidates than what are currently in the race. Anyone one of those could have probably handed Mitt and the rest of the 2012 field of the GOP nominations their heads on a platter. A lot of them took a look at the long game and decided that since incumbent Presidents are hard to unseat and the economy was slowly improving, it was best to wait for 2016.

Full disclaimer though: I don't think Obama deserves to win. I actually think he could lose. But I do think that Romney is going to have a far tougher time beating him than a lot of folks seem to think and I do think it's likely Romney will lose. He just has the look of another John Kerry/Bob Dole level of disaster.

It is early though. If Romney selects Rubio he'll probably lock up Florida in his column. If he steps out there and really pushes his views and doesn't settle for becoming the "Not Obama" candidate, he could pull it off. It's just at the moment, the rallying cry for Romney has been "Not Obama." And that doesn't win you the election at the Presidential level.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Some of them would have been decent, but Palin flatly absolutely would have been the end of the Republican Party. She could not have pulled 40% of the total vote.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Some of them would have been decent, but Palin flatly absolutely would have been the end of the Republican Party. She could not have pulled 40% of the total vote.

Man, I do not like Palin. Not even a little bit.

But she'd have been stronger in the primary than any of the rest of the field we did get. You can debate how she'd have done in the general till the cows come home, but she would have absolutely crushed it in the primary process.

I suspect strongly that she'd have done much better in the general though than you give her credit for. There's a strong sympathy vote for her and the US voting population has shown a genuine weakness for plain spoken fiery speakers.

 

[Toro]

Which candidate would you consider "better"?

Jindal, Rubio, Christie, Pawlenty, Palin and a few others were far far stronger candidates than what are currently in the race. Anyone one of those could have probably handed Mitt and the rest of the 2012 field of the GOP nominations their heads on a platter. A lot of them took a look at the long game and decided that since incumbent Presidents are hard to unseat and the economy was slowly improving, it was best to wait for 2016.

Full disclaimer though: I don't think Obama deserves to win. I actually think he could lose. But I do think that Romney is going to have a far tougher time beating him than a lot of folks seem to think and I do think it's likely Romney will lose. He just has the look of another John Kerry/Bob Dole level of disaster.

It is early though. If Romney selects Rubio he'll probably lock up Florida in his column. If he steps out there and really pushes his views and doesn't settle for becoming the "Not Obama" candidate, he could pull it off. It's just at the moment, the rallying cry for Romney has been "Not Obama." And that doesn't win you the election at the Presidential level.

Not Jindal (yet) and certainly not Palin. I'd support Christie over Romney but he's probably too combustible. Rubio is too young. Pawlenty could have been the nominee if he had any stones and foresight.

 

[Toro]

Some of them would have been decent, but Palin flatly absolutely would have been the end of the Republican Party. She could not have pulled 40% of the total vote.

Man, I do not like Palin. Not even a little bit.

But she'd have been stronger in the primary than any of the rest of the field we did get. You can debate how she'd have done in the general till the cows come home, but she would have absolutely crushed it in the primary process.

I suspect strongly that she'd have done much better in the general though than you give her credit for. There's a strong sympathy vote for her and the US voting population has shown a genuine weakness for plain spoken fiery speakers.

Palin consistently polled poorly when she hadn't declared, and was always below Romney. She merely would have been another in the long list the hard right would have circled too - and eventually dropped - as they searched for anyone but Romney.