The Romney Tapes - thoughts as to how they'll affect the election?

No, News Corp bought the WSJ in 2007.

They are often so blind to their own hypocrisy that it astounding.

(Hijack: Last week, my righty-Obama-the-secret-Muslim-Marxist-usurper coworker went on a bit during lunch about how she was feeling nauseated while eating a Chic-Fil-A sandwich. Then she went to get another sandwich. When she came back, she began again to tell me how nauseated she was feeling. I warned her to not eat that second sandwich as it might not be so good coming back up, when she told me she was ill because she had just taken ‘the morning after pill.’ I said “But you told me those were abortion pills and you were against them!”. She said “Well, I am- for people who use them flippantly.” I said “Hello. You just did that,” and she said “No, I didn’t. I have a medical problem.” What’s that?" I asked. And she said “I have a bad hip. Besides, I just had a baby. I can’t have anther one right now.” My jaw hit the floor and I made no response at all at this point.)

Irony, it burns

What’s that you say? Not everybody can borrow twenty grand from their parents and start their own business? :rolleyes: :smack:

My response would have been “fuck you, bitch,” and leaving the room.

Unfortunately, I don’t believe this new Romney gaffe is going to matter much at all. Romney’s such a terrible candidate, in so many ways, that he should be MILES behind Obama in the polls. And yet, he’s not. I think the Anybody But Obama factor is going to protect him from everything up to, and possibly including, “a live boy or a dead girl.”

Except that payroll taxes are taxes on income, which makes the 47% claim false even on its face.

And of course, there’s the assumption in Romney’s statement that it’s the same 47 percent all the time. But it’s not. While some people are poor more or less forever, many people move in and out of that 46-47 percent. A person with a good job in 2010, who loses it for most of 2011, and then gets a decent job in 2012, is presently by definition one of the “47 percent,” but he wasn’t a year ago and will again be out of that class next April. The number of people who are perpetual takers is far, far less than 47 percent. And not all of them vote Democrat.

McCain was a terrible candidate too, and Palin was far more terrifying than Ryan. Yet at this stage in the '08 campaign, with Palin already named as the GOP running mate, the Lehman collapse fresh in the news, and both conventions behind them, one would have thought Obama would have been miles ahead of McCain, but the average of the polls from around this time in the race have it pretty neck-and-neck. For all polls listed herethat include the date of September 18 in the data, the average of the results has McCain up by a smidge. So Obama’s doing better, comparatively, this time around. FWIW.

And I’d argue that Romney *is *currently miles behind Obama-- look at the electoral map and polling in the states that count. Romney’s even more behind the eight ball than McCain was at this point. He’s got very few paths and very little room for failure.

Not only that, but where Obama’s message of Hope and Change drove the GOTV last time, Romney’s out-of-touch gaffes may actually be the inspiration that drives Obama’s GOTV this time. The more Mitt steps in it, the more it fires up Obama’s base, I reckon. And discourages his own base, and potentially his donors.

A live boy or dead girl in BHO’s bed may be Romney’s only hope with 48 days to go.

Are you thinking I’m disagreeing with you? The number 47% wasn’t pulled out of his ass, it’s more or less a correct figure but he’s characterizing a lot of people as lazy and takers, many of whom are his supporters. But we know that of that 47% Students have a whole lifetime ahead of them to pay taxes, and the Elderly have paid taxes or have paid into benefit programs during their working careers.
Only a very small per centage are systemic social services recipients, and to me Americans are the hardest working population overall, and it’s hardly a nanny state, or even remotely akin to one when such a small portion of the population are identified in this way. What is stomach turning is guys like Romney prey on the perception that the 47% are all lazy slobs who will never vote Republican. For sure, the senior white vote is at least in part a Republican vote. So not only is Romney slamming Obama’s supporters, he could be alienating a significant number of his own.

No, just because I found it interesting, if only to get a small glimpse about how some people outside of this board (and on a website without any discernible partisan lean, mind you) thought of the comments. Rather interesting, don’t you agree?

…On second thought, of course not. This board is more-or-less an echo chamber, so who am I fooling?

Then why do you come here? I don’t think you DO think that it is an echo chamber, or else you wouldn’t spend so much time posting here. You think that it’s a place where your tired talking points don’t work and it infuriates you is more likely.

Highly unlikely. I actually get quite a laugh at most topics posted here, since most comments simply are a regurgitation of talking points and/or are gross liberals mischaracterizations/caricatures of any position which isn’t the “correct” one.

But I’m most definitely not the first person to ever say this, and I most definitely won’t be the last.

Generally, I only laugh at something the first time I hear it, but whatever works for you.

One of the first things you learn in sampling theory is that polls with biased populations are totally useless. Considering them anything but worthless noise is stupid.

They were probably dressed up in white guard uniforms and sporting a bob.

Could you point to some bills where democratic spending was unwarranted? Vote Smart ought to help.

Even though you replied to my post, you apparently didn’t actually read it.

We’re quite aware of the arguments that your side of things is making, such as they are. And of course, stuff like going in reverse along the Atwater scale isn’t exactly an argument, more an appeal to base instincts.

I find Maureen Dowd’s views insightful (at least when I agree with her).

Yes, it is completely unscientific, and therefore useless in describing the views of anyone but the respondents. But you know that, since you labeled it unscientific. Right?

It’s not even remotely interesting. I don’t need a poll to tell me what I already know, namely that there are people out there who agree with Romney. But the poll is not scientific, and therefore meaningless as a measure of how the country in general feels about Romney’s comments.

That’s not what they were saying. They were saying that Romney is right. And Romney is saying that 47% of people don’t give a rat’s ass about anyone but themselves. He’s wrong, of course, and insulting, but to say he’s right isn’t to be selfish, just a naive asshole.

Well far be it from me to infer by the original post that the men were only vaguely interested. Romney is right about the approximately 46- 47% that don’t pay income taxes, it’s his characterization of the 47% that’s offensive, and it seemed to me that they didn’t really give a shit about how offensive he is, just that he’s correct.