The Swing States 2012

[The Rabbi]

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!

.

Christie was ridiculed as overweight with limited experience. He also has an ethics issue that people would harp on. Also very unpopular with unions. Additionally he is terrible on the 2A.
Daniels announced he wouldn't run. No doubt the business with his wife had a lot to do with it.
Jeb Bush? Seriously? You think he would be a better candidate?
John Thune no one has heard of.

You just throw out names of people who have been mentioned. You have no idea whether they would be better or not. Look at Perry or Cain. Before they announced both looked unbeatable. But the realities of a campaign expose their strengths and especially their weaknesses.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Remember all the posters here bashing "Piyush" Jindal for being a hypocrite because he took federal money? How many months do you want to ehar about that?

 

[Mac1958]

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!

.

Christie was ridiculed as overweight with limited experience. He also has an ethics issue that people would harp on. Also very unpopular with unions. Additionally he is terrible on the 2A.
Daniels announced he wouldn't run. No doubt the business with his wife had a lot to do with it.
Jeb Bush? Seriously? You think he would be a better candidate?
John Thune no one has heard of.

You just throw out names of people who have been mentioned. You have no idea whether they would be better or not. Look at Perry or Cain. Before they announced both looked unbeatable. But the realities of a campaign expose their strengths and especially their weaknesses.

I'm not the one who threw their names out. The names came out twice - once early and once as they were begged to run as the not-Romney. The rest of the field was too feeble to even consider.

Oops, forgot about Paul Ryan. They begged him too.

So I guess we're going with denial, cool. Yeah, the GOP is just thrilled with this field, top to bottom, no matter WHAT many of them say. Those knee pads worn to get Christie and Ryan to run were for basketball actually. What the hell.

.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Let me tell you about florida.
i have been doing alot of traveling from the panhandle,the east coast,and down the center.
everywhere off 75 ,and the florida turnpike,10...
DEFEAT OBAMA IN 2012.
hes not going to have such an easy fight there.
Bookoo romney supporters.

I agree. Especially if he picks Rubio for #2 slot. Miami seems solidly Obama but once you get north a bit, it is completely GOP. This year is coing to be very close!

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

 

[auditor0007]

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.

 

[Toro]

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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Wise budget move in an election year.

 

[Toro]

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.

Wise budget move in an election year.

Yup.

He's been an anchor around the party's neck for awhile. They're trying to change that.

 

[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.

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

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

I've given this a lot of thought.

The success of Reagan is that he managed to construct the three legs of the stool correctly.

Economic conservatism - one that recognized that good paying jobs and not government dependence was the answer, but you need to encourage innovation and investment and private selection sollutions.

Social Conservatism- an adherence to traditional values most of us agree upon.

Security Conservatism- a strong military, unambigious commitment to freedom, and an understanding the US is the senior partner in the alliance that won the Cold War.

The Romney GOP has got this all wrong.

Economic Conservatism- Whatever it takes for big corporations to make a buck, even destroying middle class jobs.

Social Conservatism- giving completely in to the religious nutbags.

Security conservatism- Putting America's interests behind those of Israel, Saudi Arabia and big Corporations.

They've more or less managed to screw up everything good, and this is kind of where I'm getting off the train.

 

[Mac1958]

They've more or less managed to screw up everything good, and this is kind of where I'm getting off the train.

I generally trace this to the rise of the Tea Party and its annexation by the hard Christian Right, but I also wonder if another element is the influence of the various radio blabbers who preach nothing but absolutism. I listen to them when I can, and you can see them quoted damn near verbatim in here. It's getting creepy, the way the same words and phrases are used.

A significant portion of that party has gone crazy.

.

 

[Toro]

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.

I've given this a lot of thought.

The success of Reagan is that he managed to construct the three legs of the stool correctly.

Economic conservatism - one that recognized that good paying jobs and not government dependence was the answer, but you need to encourage innovation and investment and private selection sollutions.

Social Conservatism- an adherence to traditional values most of us agree upon.

Security Conservatism- a strong military, unambigious commitment to freedom, and an understanding the US is the senior partner in the alliance that won the Cold War.

The Romney GOP has got this all wrong.

Economic Conservatism- Whatever it takes for big corporations to make a buck, even destroying middle class jobs.

Social Conservatism- giving completely in to the religious nutbags.

Security conservatism- Putting America's interests behind those of Israel, Saudi Arabia and big Corporations.

They've more or less managed to screw up everything good, and this is kind of where I'm getting off the train.

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.

 

[sealybobo]

Lets get this straight. The Washington Post showed that a week after the GOP's attack on women, Obama beating Romney by 9 points, but then not even a day after the fluke story Fox and Rasmussen show Romney beating Obama? What a lie. They didn't even wait a week for the story to kick in because they knew it wouldn't even be a story in a week. Anyways, this new poll kind of shows that Rasmussen and Fox are full of shit.

President Barack Obama holds a nine-point lead over Republican challenger Mitt Romney thanks in part to the perception that the president is more likeable and more in touch with the problems facing women and middle class Americans, according to a new national poll.

A CNN/ORC International poll released Monday also indicates a large gender gap that benefits Obama, but the public is divided on which candidate can best jump-start the economy.

CNN Poll: Gender gap and likeability keep Obama over Romney – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Lets get this straight. The Washington Post showed that a week after the GOP's attack on women, Obama beating Romney by 9 points, but then not even a day after the fluke story Fox and Rasmussen show Romney beating Obama? What a lie. They didn't even wait a week for the story to kick in because they knew it wouldn't even be a story in a week. Anyways, this new poll kind of shows that Rasmussen and Fox are full of shit.

President Barack Obama holds a nine-point lead over Republican challenger Mitt Romney thanks in part to the perception that the president is more likeable and more in touch with the problems facing women and middle class Americans, according to a new national poll.

A CNN/ORC International poll released Monday also indicates a large gender gap that benefits Obama, but the public is divided on which candidate can best jump-start the economy.

CNN Poll: Gender gap and likeability keep Obama over Romney – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

LOL at CNN's pretend poll. Even this nonsense made their supposedly valid article:

According to the survey, 57% of Republicans say that Romney is their choice for the GOP nominee, with 19% backing Gingrich and 18% supporting Paul.

Dude, we all know that the GOP race is over, but CNN's doing anything they can make the GOP look weakened. I trust the recent Gallup poll. They're professionals without an editorial bias. They have Romney 47-45. I do put enough stock in the diversity of polls at this point though to realize that Romney needs to gain more traction in swing states.

 

[Toro]

Lets get this straight. The Washington Post showed that a week after the GOP's attack on women, Obama beating Romney by 9 points, but then not even a day after the fluke story Fox and Rasmussen show Romney beating Obama? What a lie. They didn't even wait a week for the story to kick in because they knew it wouldn't even be a story in a week. Anyways, this new poll kind of shows that Rasmussen and Fox are full of shit.

President Barack Obama holds a nine-point lead over Republican challenger Mitt Romney thanks in part to the perception that the president is more likeable and more in touch with the problems facing women and middle class Americans, according to a new national poll.

A CNN/ORC International poll released Monday also indicates a large gender gap that benefits Obama, but the public is divided on which candidate can best jump-start the economy.

CNN Poll: Gender gap and likeability keep Obama over Romney – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/218416-poll-reading-101-a.html

 

[sealybobo]

Lets get this straight. The Washington Post showed that a week after the GOP's attack on women, Obama beating Romney by 9 points, but then not even a day after the fluke story Fox and Rasmussen show Romney beating Obama? What a lie. They didn't even wait a week for the story to kick in because they knew it wouldn't even be a story in a week. Anyways, this new poll kind of shows that Rasmussen and Fox are full of shit.

President Barack Obama holds a nine-point lead over Republican challenger Mitt Romney thanks in part to the perception that the president is more likeable and more in touch with the problems facing women and middle class Americans, according to a new national poll.

A CNN/ORC International poll released Monday also indicates a large gender gap that benefits Obama, but the public is divided on which candidate can best jump-start the economy.

CNN Poll: Gender gap and likeability keep Obama over Romney – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

LOL at CNN's pretend poll. Even this nonsense made their supposedly valid article:

According to the survey, 57% of Republicans say that Romney is their choice for the GOP nominee, with 19% backing Gingrich and 18% supporting Paul.

Dude, we all know that the GOP race is over, but CNN's doing anything they can make the GOP look weakened. I trust the recent Gallup poll. They're professionals without an editorial bias. They have Romney 47-45. I do put enough stock in the diversity of polls at this point though to realize that Romney needs to gain more traction in swing states.

Google Gallop or any other poll a month before the 2008 elections and compare those neck and neck results to the ass whipping Obama gave McCain.

The only reason you won the house back in 2010 is that the stupid masses don't show up to midterms. But you guys do. That is the rights secret weapon. Voters need to wake u p. But because they don't show up, you took back the house.

But we are all showing up this November. Not so sure Christians and fiscal conservatives are going to show for Romney, just like they didn't show up for McCain. They may just go bowling and forget to vote.

I don't know who these polls are calling saying that 56% are voting for Romney. I just don't buy it. And after 2010, why should I? They proved themselves unreliable. Fact. Go check them out.

 

[The Rabbi]

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!

.

Christie was ridiculed as overweight with limited experience. He also has an ethics issue that people would harp on. Also very unpopular with unions. Additionally he is terrible on the 2A.
Daniels announced he wouldn't run. No doubt the business with his wife had a lot to do with it.
Jeb Bush? Seriously? You think he would be a better candidate?
John Thune no one has heard of.

You just throw out names of people who have been mentioned. You have no idea whether they would be better or not. Look at Perry or Cain. Before they announced both looked unbeatable. But the realities of a campaign expose their strengths and especially their weaknesses.

I'm not the one who threw their names out. The names came out twice - once early and once as they were begged to run as the not-Romney. The rest of the field was too feeble to even consider.

Oops, forgot about Paul Ryan. They begged him too.

So I guess we're going with denial, cool. Yeah, the GOP is just thrilled with this field, top to bottom, no matter WHAT many of them say. Those knee pads worn to get Christie and Ryan to run were for basketball actually. What the hell.

.

I dont see anyone else on this thread responding to a question about his post as to we should have had better candidates.
Some people begged Christie and he didnt run. SOme people begged Perry and he did run. To claim that Christie would be a better candidate is absurd.
Everyone looks better until they announce. It is the Wesley Clark Syndrome. Clark looked unbeatable right up to the day he announced. Then it was all down hill from there.

The truth is that Romney is a good candidate. He doesn't share my views, true. But he has a record of accomplishment in public life. He has a record of private-public partnerships that work. And he has built a very good and capable campaign organization that has done well in almost every race. Perfect? No. Lots of room for improvement? Yes. But getting this far is in itself an achievement and speaks well to his abilities to communicate and organize.
Look at Cain. He seemed very good. But his campaign got hit with a scandal and they couldn't deal with it. That is a good proxy for how a Cain presidency would fare. And rightly it threw him out of the race.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

I've given this a lot of thought.

The success of Reagan is that he managed to construct the three legs of the stool correctly.

Economic conservatism - one that recognized that good paying jobs and not government dependence was the answer, but you need to encourage innovation and investment and private selection sollutions.

Social Conservatism- an adherence to traditional values most of us agree upon.

Security Conservatism- a strong military, unambigious commitment to freedom, and an understanding the US is the senior partner in the alliance that won the Cold War.

The Romney GOP has got this all wrong.

Economic Conservatism- Whatever it takes for big corporations to make a buck, even destroying middle class jobs.

Social Conservatism- giving completely in to the religious nutbags.

Security conservatism- Putting America's interests behind those of Israel, Saudi Arabia and big Corporations.

They've more or less managed to screw up everything good, and this is kind of where I'm getting off the train.

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.
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.

 

[IndependntLogic]

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

um yeah. Lemme guess. You're a Romney supporter? Yeah that was tough to tell

 

[BreezeWood]

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.