Romney, The Inevitable Nominee

[bush_cheney2004]

With the jobs report saying over 200,000 new jobs were added in January, I'm beginning to wonder if you're on to something.

Remember how George Bush was pounded by Democrats for a "jobless recovery" in 2002-2004? US unemployment peaked just above 6% and began declining in time for the 2004 election. President Obama is on a similar glide slope with greater magnitude going into this election year.

No way Obama loses this election...I can't wait for the dead Osama campaign ads.

[Yukon Jack]

They do love firing people, and they don't ever worry about poor people.

If there were fewer people in power or aspiring for power, who worry about the poor people, there would be significantly fewer poor people.

"CARING" or "WORRYING", if you will, in this context is nothing but encouraging laziness and freeloading.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Yukon Jack

[Michael Hardner]

"CARING" or "WORRYING", if you will, in this context is nothing but encouraging laziness and freeloading.

Not sure why you're saying that. From memory, the biggest boost to the poor in the US came with the New Deal and New Society, both of which were policies of heavily left-leaning presidents.

[bush_cheney2004]

Not sure why you're saying that. From memory, the biggest boost to the poor in the US came with the New Deal and New Society, both of which were policies of heavily left-leaning presidents.

No, the biggest boost to the "poor" was the post WW2 economy that created a large middle class.

[Yukon Jack]

Not sure why you're saying that. From memory, the biggest boost to the poor in the US came with the New Deal and New Society, both of which were policies of heavily left-leaning presidents.

Since the introduction of The Great Society by Lyndon B. Johnson, in the mid-1960's the poverty rate in the United States went down a measly 6%, with the not so measly amount of 16 TRILLION dollars spent, to date.

Look it up. I will not give you computer welfare by providing the link, but if you do diligence, you will find it.

[Yukon Jack]

Remember how George Bush was pounded by Democrats for a "jobless recovery" in 2002-2004? US unemployment peaked just above 6% and began declining in time for the 2004 election. President Obama is on a similar glide slope with greater magnitude going into this election year.

No way Obama loses this election...I can't wait for the dead Osama campaign ads.

Long, long, long before Osama bin Laden was killed by the Navy Seals, Osama was a totally irrelevant, insignificant, spent force that nobody listened to or respected any more, reduced to being locked up and watching porn made by American liberals, 24/7.

So, let the President and his acolytes brag about Osama being dead.

Gingrich's three wives and alleged open marriage, Romney's riches and his lack of worrying about the real poor, Santorum's name being besmirched by some liberal yahoo on the internet, will be a spent force by November, but the 9-10% unemployment will NOT be.

Gloat while you may.

[Shady]

No way Obama loses this election.

You're right in the sense that all incumbent president's are favoured to win, and difficult to beat. However, there's just too many variables in effect over the next several months to say that it's impossible for him to lose. It's should have been impossible for George Bush to lose to Bill Clinton in 1992. His approval rating that January was at 70%, and the economy was churning out 500,000 jobs per month. Yet he still lost.

Anyways, the electoral map seems very compelling. Either way, it's going to be a close election.

Obama 196

Republican 181

Link

[punked]

You're right in the sense that all incumbent president's are favoured to win, and difficult to beat. However, there's just too many variables in effect over the next several months to say that it's impossible for him to lose. It's should have been impossible for George Bush to lose to Bill Clinton in 1992. His approval rating that January was at 70%, and the economy was churning out 500,000 jobs per month. Yet he still lost.

Anyways, the electoral map seems very compelling. Either way, it's going to be a close election.

Yah Obama right now is in the lead in almost everyone of those swing states Shady, I mean Michigan? Really? Obama saved the auto industry while Mitt was yelling "LIE IT DIE LET IT DIE". How is that a swing state? WI Republicans are dreaming if they think after Dems turned in 1 million signatures to recall the governor they are going to win that one. Not only that Az isn't a red state this year it is a swing state. I honestly don't see a path to a win for Republicans there is just no way they can win with the map the way it sits today. If Obama gets any stronger it isn't even a race.

[Shady]

I mean Michigan? Really?

I'm not doubting that Obama will win Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Heck, I'll even give him New Hampshire. It's just the other 5 swing states he ain't winning.

Obama saved the auto industry while Mitt was yelling "LIE IT DIE LET IT DIE".

Pure hyperbole from you, as expected. Still playing those games huh punked? Mitt Romney argued for a structured bankruptcy, that would have put GM and Chrysler in a much better position going forward.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Shady

[Shady]

RCP has a good electoral college map too. Michigan is listed as leans Obama. There you go punked, you can unbunch your panties now.

RCP

Edited February 3, 2012 by Shady

[punked]

I'm not doubting that Obama will win Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Heck, I'll even give him New Hampshire. It's just the other 5 swing states he ain't winning.

Pure hyperbole from you, as expected. Still playing those games huh punked? Mitt Romney argued for a structured bankruptcy, that would have put GM and Chrysler in a much better position going forward.

So what you are saying Obama just needs to win one of the states out of the 7-8 he is already leading in? Sounds pretty darn easy Shady. Serious you give up Michigan, Penn, WI, and NH and it is over Obama just needs to win 1-2 more while Romney needs run the table not happening.

[Shady]

So what you are saying Obama just needs to win one of the states out of the 7-8 he is already leading in? Sounds pretty darn easy Shady. Serious you give up Michigan, Penn, WI, and NH and it is over Obama just needs to win 1-2 more while Romney needs run the table not happening.

Not 7-8, probably 6 states, which are all Republican states. But you're correct in a sense, incumbent presidents are usually favoured to win re-election.

[bush_cheney2004]

It's should have been impossible for George Bush to lose to Bill Clinton in 1992. His approval rating that January was at 70%, and the economy was churning out 500,000 jobs per month. Yet he still lost.

He lost to a plurality of votes, not majority. It was a three candidate race, and Ross Perot hurt Bush more than Clinton.

Anyways, the electoral map seems very compelling. Either way, it's going to be a close election.

Sure, it may be close, but President Obama is the consummate politician, running circles around these other stiffs. Did I mention the BILLION dollars?

[Scotty]

I have to say that Obama has not done a good job as President. Yes, there's been an obstructionist congress, but that's not exactly a novelty in Washington. Yes, the Republican accusation that he's to blame for the recession are blatant hypocrisy and nonsense. Nevertheless, I've seen no vision and nothing inspirational from the White House, no new, fresh ideas.

I don't think any of the current Republicans are likely to beat him, though. Romney is extremely vulnerable in this day when more and more focus is being put on income inequality, and how the wealthy class have changed the rules to favour themselves, buying off congress so they don't have to pay much in taxes, and the burden is shifted to the middle classes. Romney's tax plan, which would further shift the tax burden downward - and not incidentally, cut his own current low taxes in half - is not going to help him any. Nor are pictures of him and his rich buddies with money in their mouths. His statement that he doesn't care about the poor isn't going to help either. And the fact he actually said because of the social safety net is pretty unconvincing given he and his party see it as their second most important task (after lowering taxes for the rich) to cut the social safety net as deeply as possible.

[Shady]

Romney's tax plan, which would further shift the tax burden downward - and not incidentally, cut his own current low taxes in half

That's completely untrue.

[punked]

That's completely untrue.

Come on Shady you are better then that.

[jbg]

With the jobs report saying over 200,000 new jobs were added in January, I'm beginning to wonder if you're on to something.

Not really. It is over if Obama stops embarrassing himself on the world stage. That is most unlikely.

[bush_cheney2004]

Not really. It is over if Obama stops embarrassing himself on the world stage. That is most unlikely.

No, it is over. State here and now who the victor shall be if not incumbent Barack Hussein Obama.

[jbg]

No, it is over. State here and now who the victor shall be if not incumbent Barack Hussein Obama.

Mitt Romney.

But I don't like demands.

[bush_cheney2004]

Mitt Romney.

But I don't like demands.

Good..then it is settled. You say Romney...I say Obama.

Look at the bright side...both are Americans.

[dre]

Not really. It is over if Obama stops embarrassing himself on the world stage. That is most unlikely.

I dunno, I dont think that "the world" really has the same take on that as you.

[maple_leafs182]

bc is right, Obama will get a 2nd term. Paul has the best chance to beat Obama since he attracts the

military, youth and independents but since most republicans are borderline retarded and cant do basic math they will go with Romney and he will lose to Obama.

[bud]

bc is right, Obama will get a 2nd term. Paul has the best chance to beat Obama since he attracts the

military, youth and independents but since most republicans are borderline retarded and cant do basic math they will go with Romney and he will lose to Obama.

plus, obama will receive a lot more money from lobbyists. either way, both obama and romney will be just fine for the establishment and lobby groups.

[bud]

the GOP pack, excluding ron paul, cannot go toe to toe against obama in debates. ron paul is the only one who has a chance against the juggernaut that is obama. his message is sincere and true. just look at how foolish santorum looks when he tries to go against the truth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yi12aVa3psc

[Michael Hardner]

ron paul is the only one who has a chance against the juggernaut that is obama.

What ? Both the first and last part of that sentence are wrong.

Times are volatile ... and hopefully people will be reluctant to put their faith in an elderly libertarian elf-man. In any case I would bet money that this won't happen, it just won't.