This should be the official slogan of today’s Republican Party.
Presumably, there is some maximum allowable argument (MAA) value that the OP would accept as indicating sincere disagreement. I’d appreciate it if the OP would let us know what that is.
Romney is not Reagan.
Obama is not Jimmy Carter.
2012 is not 1980.
Personally I was just making a joke in an utterly ridiculous thread.
I’m curious, did you listen to the clip aloud? I’m absolutely excited for the guy to be clobbered in November but it really does sound to my ear like he just meant 200-250 and lower, like he said.
I still like Karl Rove’s better: We’re an empire now…we create our own reality.
“Incomprehensible” nails it. There’s an argument to be made that the lower end of “middle income” (as far as Willard is concerned) is above $100K. :rolleyes:
I can sympathize with the OP and companions. I have been so infuriated by Presidents presidential candidates that I could not believe that anyone would vote for them. But people did, in droves. That did not make my past predictions less heartfelt, just wrong. Luckily for our great nation Clinton and Obama were there to clean up the messes those Presidents left behind.
Earlier this week Nate Silver had Obama slipping a bit in the poles. Nate then did an analysis of his electoral college model. The bottom line is the Romney must win Florida and probably Ohio to win. Obama can lose both and still have a chance to win. The electoral college map in recent elections is tough for any Republican, and Romney has not helped himself enough at this point in the election. Romney has seven weeks from this coming Tuesday to make his case.
Well, there are some (and I know more than a few) that honestly believe that $100k is poor.
And when you consider that $100k is something like 0.5% of Mitt’s yearly income it’s certainly possible that he is one of them. It’s also less than 1/3 of the “not very much” he said he earned in speaking fees.
Yeah, but other than that, it’s totally the same!
Betting Odds at Bodog for the Presidential Race
Democratics -270
Republican +210
These odds are slightly better today for the Dems than this article published yesterday
Not sure if it just reflects betting activity at another site or if the odds are increasing for Obama since Saturday.
You’re both a little overly optomistic. Obama could have lost to a credible Republican candidate. The fact that the Republicans never presented one is pure dumb fucking luck (BTW, have we ever figured out why the Republicans can’t scrape together a reasonably electable nominee?).
Prior to the Republican primary, Obama was losing badly to “Unnamed Republican Candidate” It wasn’t until we saw the cast of characters they were putting up at the first primary debate that hope stirred again.
I never said he couldn’t lose. Upthread I said it could happen. (RickJay is apparently more confident.) I said I had never “all but lost hope.”
It’s not luck at all. It’s a reflection of the deep ideological divide in the party as it has moved further and further right over the years.
I had no confidence the Republicans would nominate a good candidate. If they had, sure, they could have won.
Romney is quite credible if you’re looking for someone to actually govern. Since Democrats define credibility based not on experience or leadership but the ability to speak eloquently, obviously Romney seems unqualified to them.
Anyway, I notice that Silver’s model is starting to show a sharp drop in Obama’s chances. The polling is getting close enough that the usual superior Republican turnout can put Romney over the top. If he continues to lead independents by double digits, then he can win either based on turnout or swing voters.
And personally, I wouldn’t count on the Democratic base being excited for more than a few weeks after the convention. They have notoriously short attention spans.
Your wording here was (to me) mildly misleading. It implied that there was some kind of plunge in Obama’s chances, which had me scratching my head. But Silver seems to be saying that the drop “got a bit sharper” in relation to the previous week. I don’t see anything in his latest post that gives a large amount of good news for Mitt Romney. In fact, it seems to go out of its way to state that there hasn’t been a huge amount of change at all.
You can only say this if you define what a “credible” Republican candidate might be. If you mean one who would enthuse the base, then there were none who could capture the nomination. The base is a minority, even of Republicans, nationally. If you mean a mainstream candidate who isn’t Romney, then you should notice that all the name candidates of that ilk dropped out very early in the process. The only possible reason for this is that they did not think, even back in early 2011, that they had a good chance of beating Obama. That could be for any number of reasons, from the traditional difficulty in defeating an incumbent to the lack of large donors who were ready to fund a campaign as expensive as this one promised to be. For every single one of them, though, that was because of cold political and financial calculation not dumb luck for Obama. And there isn’t the slightest indication that any of the ones who dropped out would be doing better in the polls today. People may have wanted an ideal alternative to Obama but no actual living breathing human Republican ever came close to that standard.
Since the name mainstream candidates dropped out nothing has changed. From early last year to now and presumably through to November that meant a close race between Romney and Obama with Obama the presumptive winner because of the magnitude of his 2008 victory in the electoral college. Day to day horse race analysis of the polls fills column inches and gives people here something to post about but doesn’t mean anything, not even fodder for “I told you so.”
Somehow, Silver’s dropping from an 80% chance to a 75% chance isn’t going to cost me any sleep. You might be amazed to learn that this Democrat looks at policies and moral character and finds Obama infinitely superior to Romney on both counts. Biden may not be a gifted speaker, but I’d walk through a fire wearing a gasoline suit to vote for him.
Finally, you might experiment with posting with just a little less snark if you want to be taken seriously.
Cite that he has any interest in being taken seriously?
Was there any need to be so rude?
Rude to who? I don’t take it personally when people say mean things about Republicans.
Everything I stated is pretty factual. Democratic voters are unreliable at turning out, Obama’s bounce is dissipating more quickly than Silver predicted based on models, and Democrats did in fact reject many highly qualified leaders in order to choose among three junior Senators with more star power but little in the way of qualifications.