bush_cheney2004 Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 Pretty much. Yep....it's a done deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 I figure it's either him or Romney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted June 17, 2012 Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 What data is supporting this? It can't be the money raised over Romney, the polling data or the upswing in the economy/jobs. What am I missing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted June 17, 2012 Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 What am I missing? The electoral college breakdown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 What data is supporting this? It can't be the money raised over Romney, the polling data or the upswing in the economy/jobs. What am I missing? Actually, many highly reputable pollsters now have it basically a 50/50 toss up. In the last few months, InTrade has gone from Obama winning in the high 60s now down to the low 50s. Anyways, anyone suggesting they absolutely know what will happen doesn't really know what they're talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 The real measure of what will happen will be after the conventions and the first debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 The real measure of what will happen will be after the conventions and the first debate. Debate between two people who no matter wins, will carry on the status quo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 Debate between two people who no matter wins, will carry on the status quo. I disagree with your premise. I think both of them are very different. That's evident in their policies regarding entitlement reform, taxes, government spending, etc. It's lazy to pretend there's no difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 I disagree with your premise. I think both of them are very different. That's evident in their policies regarding entitlement reform, taxes, government spending, etc. It's lazy to pretend there's no difference. It's lazy to pretend anyone can change anything in the US with out Congress, at least 60 (today its more like 65) Senators and the Presidency. It just wont happen. Romeny wont be able to do anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 It's lazy to pretend anyone can change anything in the US with out Congress, at least 60 (today its more like 65) Senators and the Presidency. It just wont happen. Romeny wont be able to do anything. It takes leadership. Reagan didn't have 60 votes, either did Bush Sr, or Clinton, or George W. But they all had a much better rate of sucess than the current president. Why? Because he's not a leader. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 (edited) It takes leadership. Reagan didn't have 60 votes, either did Bush Sr, or Clinton, or George W. But they all had a much better rate of sucess than the current president. Why? Because he's not a leader. Tell me more about George W's successes Shady. Please. In fact why isn't Romney even mentioning this very successful president? Oh yeah because he was pretty bad and the American people don't want him again. Edited June 30, 2012 by punked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 In the last few months, InTrade has gone from Obama winning in the high 60s now down to the low 50s. No, that's wrong. He was only ever in the high 60s for about a day after bin laden was killed. "In the last few months," he's hovered in the high 40s to high 50s and in the last few weeks has been gradually climbing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 Tell me more about George W's successes Shady. Please. In fact why isn't Romney even mentioning this very successful president? Oh yeah because he was pretty bad and the American people don't want him again. By successes, I mean he was able to get what he wanted. Even after 2006, with Democrats controlling the house and senate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 By successes, I mean he was able to get what he wanted. In which alternate universe was social security privatized? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 By successes, I mean he was able to get what he wanted. Even after 2006, with Democrats controlling the house and senate. So whenever an individual gets what they want, regardless of the rightness or wrongness of it, regardless of how the majority feel, that's a success for the whole? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 In which alternate universe was social security privatized? Who said that it was? But you're right, president's don't get every single thing they want. But even after 2006, Bush got every cent he wanted from a Democratic congress for the surge in Iraq. In totality, that, and prescription drug reform, education reform, 2 sets of tax cuts, etc. All I'm saying is the president's don't have to have 60 votes to get things done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 All I'm saying is the president's don't have to have 60 votes to get things done. But if a party is willing to let the country fail so that it looks like the president is failing, then you do need the 60 votes. It's true that the Democrats were not so rabidly partisan to do that, but unfortunately the GOP is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 But if a party is willing to let the country fail so that it looks like the president is failing, then you do need the 60 votes. It's true that the Democrats were not so rabidly partisan to do that, but unfortunately the GOP is. Obama can't even get all the democrats to vote for his policies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 Obama can't even get all the democrats to vote for his policies. I guess they really aren't as mindlessly partisan as the GOP, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 Obama can't even get all the democrats to vote for his policies. But he can get some Republicans to heck some even switched from being long time Republicans to democrats because they were so distraught with their party. However you just want you to ignore those people right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 Obama can't even get all the democrats to vote for his policies. Wow. You mean some Democrats have a mind of their own - and don't automatically vote partisan? Imagine that, eh? If all of the Republicans always voted for all of Bush's policies, that doesn't speak well of the Republicans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 I disagree with your premise. I think both of them are very different. That's evident in their policies regarding entitlement reform, taxes, government spending, etc. It's lazy to pretend there's no difference. There are differences, certainly, but within a very narrow, proscribed spectrum. Tthe essentially centrist position--which, yes, has served Western states quite well in many ways--nonetheless demands a continuity of policies, and of ideology in a broad sense. Centre-right and centre-left both agree on militarization, bombing the crap out of foreign people under flimsy and contradictory pretexts, and favouring the wealthy over everybody else. That's a simplification, I freely admit, but not much of one (and less of one than what you're proposing, which is a partisan preference for one of the two major Business Parties, essentially two wings of the same creature, with some minor quibbles). The US is perfectly normal in this regard; the same thing is true for Canada, for the UK, for France, and so on. In fact, Western Europe has been the teacher in this style of rule, later adopted by its offshoots in North America and elsewhere, with minor variations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted July 2, 2012 Report Share Posted July 2, 2012 (edited) Actually, many highly reputable pollsters now have it basically a 50/50 toss up. In the last few months, InTrade has gone from Obama winning in the high 60s now down to the low 50s.Good point. Intrade (TMK) never put Obama in the high 60s but it has been trending down.So is anyone still certain that Obama will win? Yep Pretty much. On the contrary: As Bernard Landry once famously said, don't sell a politician short. ---- While I agree that Obama is a far better politician than Romney, I think (surmise, suspect, maybe I'm wrong) that the Supreme Court (Roberts) has turned this next presidential election into a referendum. We had one of those in 1988 and 1911. The last time you Americans had one was 1860. Referendum-elections are the ultimate wedge issue: the holy grail of political operators. It doesn't matter who the candidate is since people are voting on a fundamental issue. Edited July 2, 2012 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted July 2, 2012 Report Share Posted July 2, 2012 Good point. Intrade (TMK) never put Obama in the high 60s but it has been trending down. Nope. He was in the high 60s immediately after bin laden was killed. Recently, however, he's been trending up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted July 2, 2012 Report Share Posted July 2, 2012 New CNN poll has Romney up 8 points in 15 battleground states. About a third of all Americans live in states that are not considered safe Republican or safe Democratic strongholds, including toss-ups states (like Florida and Ohio) as well as states that lean toward one presidential candidate but could ultimately wind up voting for his rival. In those 15 "battleground states," the poll indicates that Romney currently has a 51%-43% advantage over the president among registered voters, if the election were held today.CNN Regardless, I don't think polls mean much until after the conventions, and especially after the first debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.