You don't get it. There is a difference between a coward and a r****d. He wants to "have his cake and eat it too". If his silly statement is wrong, nobody will remember it. In the unlikely event it's true, he will plaster it all over the forum to no end. The idea is to avoid accountability if wrong but demand worship if correct. It fits his slippery personality. In his very own threads he'll come out and play when it's all clear but hide in his mouse-hole if a cat shows up.
I agree that neither McCain nor Romney is actually nuts. But in each of their years they have acted nuts. On purpose. They had to act nuts to get their party's nomination as I expect you know. And then they were beholden to their base, to whom they'd made extremely extremist promises, to fulfill those promises. The GOP's last credible nominee was George W. Bush. He seemed like an idiot. And he even acted like an idiot -- if you look at his gubernatorial debates you can see very clearly that he (or more likely Rove) made a strategic decision to go dumber than he actually is in order to make Gore the egghead that everybody hated in school and to make Bush the guy you want to have a beer with and with whom you want to exchange silly nicknames. But, though Bush governed as a radical, he did not campaign as one. In fact, he tried his best to be seen as an unthreatening, centrist candidate since his main opponent (McCain) was coming from that direction and having success at it. Remember "compassionate conservative?" Bush/Rove invented that highly effective term. Remember how we needed to have a "more humble" approach to foreign policy, how we ought not to be the world's policemen, how we ought not to be involved in nation-building, how we needed always to have a clear exit strategy? Bush the first was the last credible Republican president but his son was the most recent credible GOP nominee, at least with regard to the nutjob spectrum.
Yeah, that's the third different article I've seen today. Apparently Rove has seen enough. This is 4 days old McManus: A Rove 'money bomb'?
I didn't agree with Bob Dole or Jack Kemps' proposals at all. I remember liked Dole because similarly to HW Bush, he was a war vet who appeared to care about the nation's well being over his party's. Dubya was clearly popular because of the lure of him governing like his father (with his father's old buddies and cabinet) while retaining the folksiness of a fake Texan...they completely and overwhelmingly capitalized on Gore's personality quirks. But Dubya imploded the Conservative right's 'big tent' intellectualism they had crafted for over 60 years. It failed so horribly that the Bush admin blatantly made government failure a central platform of their party...with them at the helm. What would make another credible front runner to me? I liked Howard Dean for his honesty, and Obama's idealism rang true even if he didn't deliver 80% of what he implied. I don't know enough about Huntsman other than his 2 hot daughters. A deal maker like Bohner is tolerable even if he looks like an angry politico from Old Guard. Ryan is devoid of intellectual and moral consistency. I really wanted Romney to be a good front runner. But no one likes him. Not his political peers or opponents, and not the voters. I don't think people would care about the flip flops if he stood out against his party early on. My current theory on how it's possible for him to do so much church work but is still oddly "psuedo-autistic" with the people around him is that he's a rules follower. In other words, he follows faith legalistically and thinks the Golden Ticket comes through works. He's a good son in all senses of the phrase. But it makes him arrogant and disconnected as hell. "If I can do it, why can't you?" "If I can strike a formal contract with my superior, such as my father, Bain boardmembers, Harvard...why can't you?" "If you're starving, why can't you work to feed yourself?" It's that lack of emotional empathy combined with the outward smugness of being better than people in intellect, material wealth, and spiritual status (if there ever truly was a thing) that most likely makes his peers hate the guy. It's too bad. If I knew who the real Willard was, and picked a more honest running mate, I would spend more time to consider weighing his merits against Obama's flaws and mislead promises.
I know of ultra-liberal posters who think Obama has been more of a replublican than a democrat and while they are dissapointed with Obama, they will still vote for him. Listen, given the repugs' total obstructionist approach towards Obama, he did as well as he could. It is like playing bb with just one arm. You can only do so much.
Penn Voter law will not take effect until after election day http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/81905.html?hp=l1
To be fair, he was against nation building, not nation destruction. <iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/F9SOVzMV2bc?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Romney will be President if the dem. base keeps thinking it is in the bag.... if the dems get concerned and show up, Romney will get his ears pinned back in the electoral college..... very possible for Obama to end up with over 310 electoral votes if the turnout is high.
Why did he make a desperation pick in Palin if it wasn't about energizing the base? You have to consider who he might've picked if not Palin and that is Pawlenty. While Pawlenty isn't going to embarrass McCain he's not going to excite anyone and McCain himself wasn't exciting anymore. I am just not sure what McCain would've closed hard with. Even without Palin he made several missteps during the campaign, shutting down his campaign over the financial crisis, poor debate performance and etc.. I just don't see how McCain / Pawlenty would've closed the gap. While he got lucky against a Jon McCain who was a shadow of his 2000 self you have to consider he was coming off beating the most potent Democratic Dynasty since the Kennedys. Hillary Clinton ran an incredible campaign that was historic in regard to how much money it raised and how long it was fought. Obama ran a superior campaign. The 2008 election to me was a lot like the NFL playoffs in the late 80's. Whoever won the NFC playoffs was going to win the Superbowl. The Democratic primaries were the NFC playoffs. [edit] whoops see Major posted pretty much the same thing. End of derail.
What's interesting is that G HW Bush actually was to the left of Obama on many things. He really did raise taxes, signed the Americans with Disability Act and was more of an internationalist that Obama.
I don't think turnout will be a problem for Dem or Repub. Both parties have developed sophisticated turnout operations.
Since you quoted him, I saw basso's post. So I'm wondering... what is supposed to be booked? basso stops starting threads for a year if Romney loses? I'll make that bet with him. If Romney wins, I won't start a thread for a year. If Obama wins, basso doesn't start a thread for a year after the election, and I'll include taking him off ignore for the same period, just for the heck of it. Does basso have the stones to put his thread starting privileges where his mouth is?
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/02/cnn-poll-obama-at-70-among-latino-voters/?hpt=hp_t1 Deezam. Obama at 70% among latino voters. Ay Caramba!
Turnout operations will work for suburban liberals or independents that may decide it isn't worth the hassle to vote on the way to or from work.. especially if they believe it is a lock Obama wins. I am deeply concerned that they actual voting numbers will be 2-3% different than polling numbers if the attitude continues. I could see a situation where Romney wins the popular vote and the EC comes down to Nevada or Colorado.
Nook, I don't think you are taking the dejection republicans feel about thier choice of candidate into consideration. Voter enthusiasm has soared for democrats in recent polls. Voter enthusiasm in these states has grown among members of both political parties; however, Democrats' level has increased more. Thus, whereas equal percentages of Democrats and Republicans were enthusiastic in June, Democrats are now significantly more enthusiastic than Republicans, 73% vs. 64%. Independents' enthusiasm also jumped substantially over this period -- up 18 points, similar to the 20-point gain among Democrats; however, independents' enthusiasm still lags behind that of both partisan groups. Democratic Enthusiasm Swells in the Swing States, Nationally
This works both ways - it's why the GOP keeps complaining about "biased polls" and the media wanting to keep GOP voters at home. If you think your candidate is definitely going to lose, you're also more likely to stay home and not bother voting. Obama had it in the bag in 2008 and it didn't affect Dem turnout negatively. People like voting for a winner more than a loser.
Agreed. When people are fired up over their guy, they love driving their own nail into the competition's coffin. Dems enthusiasm at the polls won't be an issue. It will be for the GOP.
