Robert E Lee gave the South a chance in an impossible to win war. Lincoln had to replace what, 5 generals? before finding one who was competent enough to defeat Lee. He chose to fight for the South because he was fighting for Virginia, not the CSA. His loyalty was to his state, which back then people viewed as their country. Anyways this is a dumb thread.
No you dont need to. John Kerry was also up in the polls at this point in 2004. And the biggest difference is that Kerry had an incredibly narrow path to victory in 2004. His winning was entirely dependent on winning either Ohio or Florida. Obama on the other hand has a much broader path to victory. Obama is winning by a fair margin in Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada (all states that went to Bush in 2004) In addition, Virginia is a straight toss up whereas in 2004 that was an auto-win for Republicans. Ohio has been leaning Obama from the start of the cycle and hasn't really budged since. And Obama basically has to win one of those 3 (Ohio, Florida or Virginia) whereas Romney either has to win all 3 (unlikely if you ask me) or steal Pennsylvania (unlikely as well) At least Kerry only had to win one of the big 2 (either Florida or Ohio) Romney basically has to win 3 big states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia) Good luck pulling that off. Romney has to steal some Obama states from 2008 (Colorado being the most likely to possibly flip) Not to mention if Obama somehow pulls off North Carolina again(which is unlikely) then Romney basically has no chance to win. But then again Bush shouldn't have won New Mexico either but when faced with a lousy Democratic candidate he held a fairly blue state so I wont take NC entirely out of play. If Romney's campaign runs as poorly as it has looked thus far, he's toast. Obama's ground game is as good as it gets and this time around they have a built in grassroots program already in place from 4 years ago. The math is totally stacked against Republicans right now. National polls are largely irrelevant. They've been in the margin of error since the beginning of the cycle. What matters is electoral paths to victory which heavily favor Obama.
None of that changed the fact that he was a loser. Even someone as stupid as Shaq who had to be given an honorary degree from LSU realized that he'd win more championships in LA than in Orlando.
If he wanted to win he should have. A captain going down with his ship is a stubborn, prideful male empowerment fantasy. Adaptation is the secret of survival.
what you say may be true or not, but who the hell are you to call him a loser? you're just another f***wad on this board pushing keys like eveybody else. So you read a book and now you're some kind of Lee specialist? Go to hell with that attitude.
Not all men are cowardice squirrels akin to the Cali boys. This is Texas, where we are as stubborn as it gets and value honor and loyalty.
Says the guy who is wetting his pants at the thought of marauding liberals attacking him in his car. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?p=7083085#post7083085
Most of the polling at this point is a waste of time and some of it is politically driven (to create the false perception that a candidate is strong), although the good ones that use likely voters instead of registered voters have some useful information. Rasmussen is the best non-captive polling organization, hands down. The issue that I quoted above is perhaps the biggest myth in politics today -- Obama's ground game strength. Where was that strength in 2010, when Democrats were routed across the country? Where was that strength in Wisconsin this year? In the Virginia and NY special elections? OFA threw its full weight behind these efforts and lost. Meanwhile, the RNC actually has capable leadership now that Michael Steele is gonzo, and the Republicans gathered an incredible amount of data from the primaries. Also you have a much stronger level of voter enthusiasm on the Republican side this year, as compared to the opposite in 2008. One other point to consider -- is this the year the Bradley Effect comes back into play -- now that the feelings of 'hope and change' erased from the minds of the independents?
While I agree with some of your comments, I am relieved you are not in charge of the content presented in history books. By this logic we should also eliminate all mention of indigenous peoples (****ing Native American losers!), Hitler, Jesus Christ, the Greek/Roman Empires, etc.
"And with that, RocketRaccoon suddely realized what it must be like for Batman Jones to listen to even 12 seconds of Rush Limbaugh" I'm back b****es. And I'm here to regulate some texxxass. Call me the MSNBC of the D&D - The Ronald
