Mitt Romney is a quack and a political peon

[Juror#8]

Ok, so the subject title is somewhat hyperbolic, inflammatory, and screams "read the contents herein."

 

But with that said, I just want to point out - as the Romney trends move in the direction that I've being saying for months that it would move - that Romney will lose handily in the general election and that there are much better candidates in the current Republican field IF the goal is a Republican presence in the White House.

 

In the thread reproduced presently, I mentioned that the opp research on Romney, once publicized, will sink his support into the low 30% range (I've seen much of the material - it's an opposing campaign strategists' wet dream); that the Administration DOES NOT fear Romney; and that Jon Huntsman is the candidate that they fear the most:

 

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/136890-is-the-white-house-trying-to-screw-romney-by/page__st__20

 

I also mentioned that my thoughts were not conjectural, however they were based on conversations with well placed folks whose job it is to know what is going on before most everyone else.

 

Now read Erick Erickson's article from today:

 

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/11/08/mitt-romney-as-the-nominee-conservatism-dies-and-barack-obama-wins/

 

He ascribed a legitimate conservative voice to the points that I've been discussing for months.

 

You can't deny Erickson's conservative bona fides. He is the most influential conservative blogger in the country. He has also seen the same opp research that I (and others) have, and shares the same opinion on the WH's confidence in a Romney match-up, and alludes to Jon Huntsman's conservative bona fides.

 

So again, the WH DOES NOT fear Romney. Romney will LOSE a head-to-head match-up (opining obviously). The WH fears a Huntsman surge. They worry about Gingrich in a debate and his intellectual conservatism. They had a healthy concern about Cain but the word is that they feel that he is smoke-in-mirrors.

 

You can doubt, but unlike some, my info is not based on a couple of polls of "independents" conducted over a month span a year before the election, or some blind allegiance to talk radio, or just a feeling.

 

Of course, much of what Erickson says is *his* opinion. And maybe that shouldn't sway you directionally. But he is basing his stance on the same info that is and has been percolating under the political surface for quite a while.

Edited November 8, 2011 by Juror#8

[John Adams]

Considering how the Republican primary looks like it's just hopping from flavor of the day to flavor of the day, sure, why not Jon Huntsman for a while.

 

The only person who seems to stay in the mix at the top is Romney. Pretty safe bet that Romney, who is the most centrist of all the Reps, gets the nod.

Edited November 8, 2011 by John Adams

[....lybob]

Wall Street loves Romney and despite the complaining likes Obama plenty- so unless a dead body shows up I think Romney ends up the last man standing for the GOP.

[BiggieScooby]

I'd love to see Romney lose, to Perry or Cain. Obama vs. Romney is the only true challenge.

[John Adams]

Perry was falling before last night but that gaffe in the age of youtube is probably the end of him. Cain got laughed at by the Republican audience every time his 9-9-9 plan came up and he's bogged down in mudslinging that is hurtning him. Romney is the only guy consistently in the 1 or 2 slot. In any event, it looks like Newt might be the big winner, as he's got a brain and has stayed out of the fray until now. But he's got way too much baggage to get the nod.

 

Looks like the Republican nomination is Romney's to lose, which means an easy Obama win.

[IDBillzFan]

I'd love to see Romney lose, to Perry or Cain. Obama vs. Romney is the only true challenge.

As has been evidenced in the past, all Obama needs to do is run against someone who was divorced and victory is his.

[3rdnlng]

As has been evidenced in the past, all Obama needs to do is run against someone who was divorced and victory is his.

 

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=47438

 

Sort of spells it out.

[Juror#8]

Perry was falling before last night but that gaffe in the age of youtube is probably the end of him. Cain got laughed at by the Republican audience every time his 9-9-9 plan came up and he's bogged down in mudslinging that is hurtning him. Romney is the only guy consistently in the 1 or 2 slot. In any event, it looks like Newt might be the big winner, as he's got a brain and has stayed out of the fray until now. But he's got way too much baggage to get the nod.

 

Looks like the Republican nomination is Romney's to lose, which means an easy Obama win.

 

Obama vs. Romney is a sure victory for Obama. It would be nice if the Republicans could put forth (or coalesce behind) a candidate that has potential in a general election context.

 

Romney is gonna get smashed.

 

Newt or Huntsman are the best candidates in the field. Newt's situation is tricky because of his infidelities; however because of the age and the nature of the infractions, I don't see a play with respect to negative ads. Obama didn't highlight McCain's infidelity during the 2008 campaign. Why would he take a different route with Newt?

 

Also, I really would like to see Obama accept Newt's proposal of 3 or 4 Lincoln-Douglas style debates on healthcare, taxes, et cetera. Newt's intellectual brand of conservatism appeals to me. He is an idea guy.

 

Whereas Newt is the theoretician, Huntsman is the best candidate pragmatically. He has the resume, the articulated fiscal policy plan, and the appeal to be successful. He is squeeky clean, self-effacing, and the administration doesn't know how to approach him tactically. He was on Obama's leadership team - so they're somewhat limited in their opposition!

 

He'll never get the nomination though, because he didn't object to Obama's China policy and that obviously means that he can't be conservative in every other aspect of his political universe.

 

Now, about Robert Gates...

[Adam]

I think Condoleeza Rice would squash this whole bunch, but she is smart enough that she doesn't want to be President

[OCinBuffalo]

Ok, so the subject title is somewhat hyperbolic, inflammatory, and screams "read the contents herein."

 

But with that said, I just want to point out - as the Romney trends move in the direction that I've being saying for months that it would move - that Romney will lose handily in the general election and that there are much better candidates in the current Republican field IF the goal is a Republican presence in the White House.

 

In the thread reproduced presently, I mentioned that the opp research on Romney, once publicized, will sink his support into the low 30% range (I've seen much of the material - it's an opposing campaign strategists' wet dream); that the Administration DOES NOT fear Romney; and that Jon Huntsman is the candidate that they fear the most:

 

http://forums.twobil...by/page__st__20

 

I also mentioned that my thoughts were not conjectural, however they were based on conversations with well placed folks whose job it is to know what is going on before most everyone else.

 

Now read Erick Erickson's article from today:

 

http://www.redstate....ack-obama-wins/

 

He ascribed a legitimate conservative voice to the points that I've been discussing for months.

 

You can't deny Erickson's conservative bona fides. He is the most influential conservative blogger in the country. He has also seen the same opp research that I (and others) have, and shares the same opinion on the WH's confidence in a Romney match-up, and alludes to Jon Huntsman's conservative bona fides.

 

So again, the WH DOES NOT fear Romney. Romney will LOSE a head-to-head match-up (opining obviously). The WH fears a Huntsman surge. They worry about Gingrich in a debate and his intellectual conservatism. They had a healthy concern about Cain but the word is that they feel that he is smoke-in-mirrors.

 

You can doubt, but unlike some, my info is not based on a couple of polls of "independents" conducted over a month span a year before the election, or some blind allegiance to talk radio, or just a feeling.

 

Of course, much of what Erickson says is *his* opinion. And maybe that shouldn't sway you directionally. But he is basing his stance on the same info that is and has been percolating under the political surface for quite a while.

But, we already know 2 things about the people you speak with:

1. They are the same people who thought "just pass Obamacare, and they will like it once they see it" and about 1000 other things, that prove that they struggle massively with perception and execution.

2. They think they are smarter than us, which they patently are not

 

Given those 2 things, I simply don't respect their "we will kill Romney" opinion.

 

That's for 2 reasons:

1. What possible Opposition Research do they have on a tight ass Mormon who worked at the same company for 25 years? There is a high degree of probability that whatever they have is only inflammatory and damaging to Romney....for them, and 22% of the country. There's a good chance that nobody else will care. There's a great chance that they are projecting their idiocy on us...again.

2. Even if they had such things, what on earth makes you think Obama will be able to make use of any of it? In a debate for example, what makes you think Romney, who has already proved his slickness, won't turn it around on Obama just like he turned the housing question around on the moderator in the last debate? Romney >>>> Obama regarding thinking on your feet, and a case could be made for thinking in general.

3. The newest poll shows Romney beating Obama in Florida and Ohio, and only 1 behind in PA. That's against a sitting President...a year out. The history of that suggests that Romney is already leading this race. Typically the incumbent President gets a 5-10 point "name recognition" cushion...Romney has already surpassed that. But you know that, because you do this for a living, right?

 

Keep telling yourself Obama will kill Romney though....I want to troll the hell out of you for the next year.

Obama vs. Romney is a sure victory for Obama. It would be nice if the Republicans could put forth (or coalesce behind) a candidate that has potential in a general election context.

 

Romney is gonna get smashed.

 

Newt or Huntsman are the best candidates in the field. Newt's situation is tricky because of his infidelities; however because of the age and the nature of the infractions, I don't see a play with respect to negative ads. Obama didn't highlight McCain's infidelity during the 2008 campaign. Why would he take a different route with Newt?

 

Also, I really would like to see Obama accept Newt's proposal of 3 or 4 Lincoln-Douglas style debates on healthcare, taxes, et cetera. Newt's intellectual brand of conservatism appeals to me. He is an idea guy.

 

Whereas Newt is the theoretician, Huntsman is the best candidate pragmatically. He has the resume, the articulated fiscal policy plan, and the appeal to be successful. He is squeeky clean, self-effacing, and the administration doesn't know how to approach him tactically. He was on Obama's leadership team - so they're somewhat limited in their opposition!

 

He'll never get the nomination though, because he didn't object to Obama's China policy and that obviously means that he can't be conservative in every other aspect of his political universe.

 

Now, about Robert Gates...

Dude, Huntsman is dead. It's over in Iowa, never mind New Hampshire. You are arguing for a guy that nobody cares about, who worked for Obama? WTF? Let me see if this penetrates your knucklehead beltway bubble: we KNOW Obama is incompetent. Anybody that worked for him is a friggin pariah, especially a trust fund baby who's daddy did all the work. We also KNOW that short of the new people that just got elected in 2010, most of DC is incompetent as well.

 

I am not kidding. That's the real perception. You think people are screwing around when they talk about shutting down entire departments of the Federal government? Nope. Personally I am not convinced, because I always worry about unintended consequences, but, I am in the minority I assure you.

 

You think a guy who believes in the politics of Global Warming is electable, with $3.90 gas prices? The default position is going to be: prove why the EPA needs to exist. Get it? You and your friends are in for a long-overdue wake up call. People are pissed, and I am talking hearing people on recent calls saying "I'm actually gonna give money for the first time/volunteer for a campaign", "anything is better than this", "now we have nothing to lose", pissed. Get it? Your bosses have everything to lose, and they better wise up. If you keep telling yourself that we're all idiots, and that you know better, it's going to be your ass. You don't know better, and you have proven it.

[Juror#8]

But, we already know 2 things about the people you speak with:

1. They are the same people who thought "just pass Obamacare, and they will like it once they see it" and about 1000 other things, that prove that they struggle massively with perception and execution.

2. They think they are smarter than us, which they patently are not

 

Given those 2 things, I simply don't respect their "we will kill Romney" opinion.

 

That's for 2 reasons:

1. What possible Opposition Research do they have on a tight ass Mormon who worked at the same company for 25 years? There is a high degree of probability that whatever they have is only inflammatory and damaging to Romney....for them, and 22% of the country. There's a good chance that nobody else will care. There's a great chance that they are projecting their idiocy on us...again.

2. Even if they had such things, what on earth makes you think Obama will be able to make use of any of it? In a debate for example, what makes you think Romney, who has already proved his slickness, won't turn it around on Obama just like he turned the housing question around on the moderator in the last debate? Romney >>>> Obama regarding thinking on your feet, and a case could be made for thinking in general.

3. The newest poll shows Romney beating Obama in Florida and Ohio, and only 1 behind in PA. That's against a sitting President...a year out. The history of that suggests that Romney is already leading this race. Typically the incumbent President gets a 5-10 point "name recognition" cushion...Romney has already surpassed that. But you know that, because you do this for a living, right?

 

Keep telling yourself Obama will kill Romney though....I want to troll the hell out of you for the next year.

 

1. What do you know about those with whom I speak - that I have political conversations with my brother, his friends, and the Republican Congressman (and staffers) with whom I work. If you knew anything about the diverse cast of characters with whom I correspond on a daily basis, you'd know that your assumptions are fundamentally incorrect.

 

Now, since it seems that you've predicated your entire post on that assumption, I guess dismantling your assumption undermines everything that you've said subsequent to your opening salvo. But I'll oblige you anyway by counter-pointing the facts that you've discussed.

 

1a. I just mentioned that they have tons of opp research. Erik Erikson did as well. I'm not privy to all the details. But what I've seen is interesting. You can doubt the effectiveness prospectively. But be wary of presenting your opinion as fact. It's also interesting how you didn't address the Erikson article. But since it's obvious in reading you posts that your debate style is to red herring and straw man your way through your analysis, and then tidy it up with a witty closing as if everything preceding it was profound, I'm not surprised that you made some assumptions, dismissed key elements, and then *effectively* argued a bastardized position.

 

Though it's easier that way, it only works when people are not perspicacious enough to realize the tactic.

 

2a. I don't know how/if the opp research would be used or used effectively. And we also don't know how the two would come off in a debate with one another because it hasn't happened yet. They are both proficient debaters. They're both professorial, academic, analytical types who handle extemporaneous moments/questions sveltely. Your opinion is that Romney would do better. We'll see how/if that happens.

 

3. What poll are you seeing? Not saying that you're being untruthful, but you should be candid in identifying polls (as specifically as you did) because there are many of them. Recent ones that I've seen show varying numbers in the battleground states.

 

But also, your characterization of where numbers should be at historical points before the election is baseless and wrong. Please provide support for your contention. Poll numbers this far in advance are ALL over the place and don't evidence incumbent or challenger trouble. Clinton was in trouble in polls 9 months before the election and destroyed Dole. Bush II thought he was gonna lose to Kerry and was even concerned a few hours into exit polling. Reagan's number didn't spike until election day. He was polling even with Carter but won in a landslide electorally.

 

Again, you're throwing around opinions as if they're facts. Save that for little cousins, and the echo chamber/choir here who agree with you already.

 

Please troll away. I enjoy it. I don't have a monopoly on "right." If I end up wrong, call me on it.

 

Dude, Huntsman is dead. It's over in Iowa, never mind New Hampshire. You are arguing for a guy that nobody cares about, who worked for Obama? WTF? Let me see if this penetrates your knucklehead beltway bubble: we KNOW Obama is incompetent. Anybody that worked for him is a friggin pariah, especially a trust fund baby who's daddy did all the work. We also KNOW that short of the new people that just got elected in 2010, most of DC is incompetent as well.

 

I am not kidding. That's the real perception. You think people are screwing around when they talk about shutting down entire departments of the Federal government? Nope. Personally I am not convinced, because I always worry about unintended consequences, but, I am in the minority I assure you.

 

You think a guy who believes in the politics of Global Warming is electable, with $3.90 gas prices? The default position is going to be: prove why the EPA needs to exist. Get it? You and your friends are in for a long-overdue wake up call. People are pissed, and I am talking hearing people on recent calls saying "I'm actually gonna give money for the first time/volunteer for a campaign", "anything is better than this", "now we have nothing to lose", pissed. Get it? Your bosses have everything to lose, and they better wise up. If you keep telling yourself that we're all idiots, and that you know better, it's going to be your ass. You don't know better, and you have proven it.

 

1. When did I argue for Huntsman? And again, why not reference the Erikson article? I said that he had legit conservative bona fides and a salient economic plan. In the same breath I mentioned a shortcoming (although complimentary). Again, you're arguing a straw man. If I was advocating for anyone, it was Newt. But you won't acknowledge that, because it allows you to continue arguing a straw man (your tactic of choice).

 

2. My "bosses"? The Republican congressman? What does he have to lose? He called you an idiot? Hmmm...that's not like him. My friends?

 

2a. Lastly, it doesn't matter if I think he is electable. There are a lot of characteristics of political figures that I find unbecoming. But they still win. Because in the context of cost-benefit analysis, they're better than the next guy.

 

Try again?

Edited November 11, 2011 by Juror#8

[OCinBuffalo]

1. What do you know about those with whom I speak - that I have political conversations with my brother, his friends, and the Republican Congressman (and staffers) with whom I work. If you knew anything about the diverse cast of characters with whom I correspond on a daily basis, you'd know that your assumptions are fundamentally incorrect.

 

Now, since it seems that you've predicated your entire post on that assumption, I guess dismantling your assumption undermines everything that you've said subsequent to your opening salvo. But I'll oblige you anyway by counter-pointing the facts that you've discussed.

 

1a. I just mentioned that they have tons of opp research. Erik Erikson did as well. I'm not privy to all the details. But what I've seen is interesting. You can doubt the effectiveness prospectively. But be wary of presenting your opinion as fact. It's also interesting how you didn't address the Erikson article. But since it's obvious in reading you posts that your debate style is to red herring and straw man your way through your analysis, and then tidy it up with a witty closing as if everything preceding it was profound, I'm not surprised that you made some assumptions, dismissed key elements, and then *effectively* argued a bastardized position.

 

Though it's easier that way, it only works when people are not perspicacious enough to realize the tactic.

Let's make this even simpler for you: Obama etc. suck at their jobs. It's obvious. What a blogger who supports another candidate has to say about Romney has 0 effect on that.

 

Obama is about to get hoodwinked and beaten handily by the entire Congress, over the jobs bill that is happening right now, unless your boss and your friends vote against it. Silly Obama sent a non-starter bill to Congress to use it as a political tool, and instead is going to get a real bill in return, which means he loses either way....and I am supposed to be in awe of his/his team's political skill? I am supposed to believe them when they say they aren't afraid of Romney, and will easily defeat him? Where's my "straw man" in that analysis, moron? Where's the need for me to know each and every person you work with? I have been accused of being an expert analyst, and I know that doing that job means you often don't have all the facts, but get it right anyway.

 

Obama will have to sign the "not his" jobs bill, and Romney will crush him with that. You think that some "But...but...but....Romney did this 20 years ago" thing is going to stand up against this? And the 100 other things like this that have already happened or will happen this year? Not even close. Time for some objectivity, pal. Time for some common sense as well.

2a. I don't know how/if the opp research would be used or used effectively. And we also don't know how the two would come off in a debate with one another because it hasn't happened yet. They are both proficient debaters. They're both professorial, academic, analytical types who handle extemporaneous moments/questions sveltely. Your opinion is that Romney would do better. We'll see how/if that happens.

No the facts are quite clear: Obama has no chance with out his teleprompter. We have seen this so many times that we are way past a pattern or a correlation. Romney has been getting hit by everybody and training for months now. Obama : Rocky :: Romney : Clubber Lang. Now, my opinion is that Romney has been clearly holding back. He simply trying to get a hit every game, and get on to the next one. I think he won't start swinging for the fences until if and when he is facing Obama.

3. What poll are you seeing? Not saying that you're being untruthful, but you should be candid in identifying polls (as specifically as you did) because there are many of them. Recent ones that I've seen show varying numbers in the battleground states.

 

But also, your characterization of where numbers should be at historical points before the election is baseless and wrong. Please provide support for your contention. Poll numbers this far in advance are ALL over the place and don't evidence incumbent or challenger trouble. Clinton was in trouble in polls 9 months before the election and destroyed Dole. Bush II thought he was gonna lose to Kerry and was even concerned a few hours into exit polling. Reagan's number didn't spike until election day. He was polling even with Carter but won in a landslide electorally.

 

Again, you're throwing around opinions as if they're facts. Save that for little cousins, and the echo chamber/choir here who agree with you already.

Quinnipiac today. As candid as can be. You aren't disputing my analysis of these numbers, are you? Any more "strawmen"?

 

Dude, you aren't honestly going to dispute something I have heard people say for years, are you? Are you telling me guys like Karl Rove, James Carville, and Dick Morris are idiots, and you know better? These numbers are what they are, and you know what they mean: time to rethink the "Obama will kill Romney" thing, isn't it?

1. When did I argue for Huntsman? And again, why not reference the Erikson article? I said that he had legit conservative bona fides and a salient economic plan. In the same breath I mentioned a shortcoming (although complimentary). Again, you're arguing a straw man. If I was advocating for anyone, it was Newt. But you won't acknowledge that, because it allows you to continue arguing a straw man (your tactic of choice).

 

2. My "bosses," the Republican congressman? What does he have to lose? He called you an idiot? Hmmm...that's not like him. My firends?

 

2a. Lastly, it doesn't matter if I think he is electable. There are a lot of characteristics of political figures that I find unbecoming. But they still win. Because in the context of cost-benefit analysis, they're better than the enext guy.

 

Try again?

Dude you said Huntsman was electable, and you also said he was "pragmatic" candidate. I merely told you why you were wrong, and backed that up with questions you chose not to answer, because we both know you can't.

 

Half my clients are screaming bloody murder, and the other half at least say something bad about government, and especially Obama. I added it up yesterday, because this has been going on for a while, and I found that I spent an 63 minutes yesterday listening to Dodd Frank/Banking/Obamacare bitching.

 

Where's the "strawman" in that? People are pissed, the quotes above are direct, and you are acting like it doesn't matter.

 

You are telling me that Romney has no chance...based on what Obama's "gang that can't shoot straight" has to say. The fact is that they are "the gang that can't shoot straight", having proved it themselves multiple times.

 

The only opinion I offer is: saying that Romney has no chance against these people is ridiculous.

[B-Man]

Today’s Questions for the President

November 11, 2011 9:52 A.M.

By Peter Kirsanow

 

 

Just two weeks ago at a San Francisco fundraiser you said, “We have lost our ambition, our imagination, and our willingness to do the things that built the Golden Gate Bridge and Hoover Dam and unleashed all the potential in this country.” Yesterday you announced that you’re postponing — until after the 2012 election — the decision on whether to move forward with the Keystone XL pipeline. The 1,700 mile pipeline would convey approximately 700,000 barrels of crude oil per day from Alberta, Canada to refineries along the Gulf Coast. It’s estimated that pipeline construction would produce 20,000 jobs directly and up to 100,000 indirectly.

 

The decision on the Keystone XL pipeline has been under consideration since the beginning of your administration.

 

How were you able to make the decision to transform one-seventh of the U.S. economy in far less time than it’s taking to make a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline?

 

What aspects of the pipeline construction are more problematic than restructuring the entire U.S. health-care system?

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

Romney can win. I do not doubt that. But the Republican celebration would be seriously short lived. He would be another Scott Brown, Arnold, etc, who the Conservatives would hate as soon as he did something/anything to anger the stupid Tea Party.

[Juror#8]

Let's make this even simpler for you: Obama etc. suck at their jobs. It's obvious. What a blogger who supports another candidate has to say about Romney has 0 effect on that.

 

Obama is about to get hoodwinked and beaten handily by the entire Congress, over the jobs bill that is happening right now, unless your boss and your friends vote against it. Silly Obama sent a non-starter bill to Congress to use it as a political tool, and instead is going to get a real bill in return, which means he loses either way....and I am supposed to be in awe of his/his team's political skill? I am supposed to believe them when they say they aren't afraid of Romney, and will easily defeat him? Where's my "straw man" in that analysis, moron? Where's the need for me to know each and every person you work with? I have been accused of being an expert analyst, and I know that doing that job means you often don't have all the facts, but get it right anyway.

 

Obama will have to sign the "not his" jobs bill, and Romney will crush him with that. You think that some "But...but...but....Romney did this 20 years ago" thing is going to stand up against this? And the 100 other things like this that have already happened or will happen this year? Not even close. Time for some objectivity, pal. Time for some common sense as well.

 

No the facts are quite clear: Obama has no chance with out his teleprompter. We have seen this so many times that we are way past a pattern or a correlation. Romney has been getting hit by everybody and training for months now. Obama : Rocky :: Romney : Clubber Lang. Now, my opinion is that Romney has been clearly holding back. He simply trying to get a hit every game, and get on to the next one. I think he won't start swinging for the fences until if and when he is facing Obama.

 

Quinnipiac today. As candid as can be. You aren't disputing my analysis of these numbers, are you? Any more "strawmen"?

 

Dude, you aren't honestly going to dispute something I have heard people say for years, are you? Are you telling me guys like Karl Rove, James Carville, and Dick Morris are idiots, and you know better? These numbers are what they are, and you know what they mean: time to rethink the "Obama will kill Romney" thing, isn't it?

 

Dude you said Huntsman was electable, and you also said he was "pragmatic" candidate. I merely told you why you were wrong, and backed that up with questions you chose not to answer, because we both know you can't.

 

Half my clients are screaming bloody murder, and the other half at least say something bad about government, and especially Obama. I added it up yesterday, because this has been going on for a while, and I found that I spent an 63 minutes yesterday listening to Dodd Frank/Banking/Obamacare bitching.

 

Where's the "strawman" in that? People are pissed, the quotes above are direct, and you are acting like it doesn't matter.

 

You are telling me that Romney has no chance...based on what Obama's "gang that can't shoot straight" has to say. The fact is that they are "the gang that can't shoot straight", having proved it themselves multiple times.

 

The only opinion I offer is: saying that Romney has no chance against these people is ridiculous.

 

Really...

 

1. I ask you to "try again" and you respond to 25%-35% of my post, although quoting it in it's entirety?

 

2. You call your opinion, "analysis," about the legislative course of the jobs bill. Really?

 

3. Your attempt to make a salient point about poll trends is comprised of some declarative statements and a "Rocky" analogy. Really?

 

3a. Then your profound follow up to my historical reference to national poll trends spanning the last 30 years is to mention that your knowledge was derived from 3 talking heads on cable news networks. To add insult to injury, you name drop without substantiation of their words, commentary, or context. It's as if because you say it, it makes it so. Really?

 

How about this, you can go back to look at trends for what I referenced. You can look at the 76, 80, 84, 88, 92, 96, 00, 04, 08 elections and see that what I'm saying makes sense. How do we determine the veracity of your statements? That's right, we can't; but because you said it, it is per se evidentiary, right? Really?

 

4. I have pointed out more than once in multiple threads that Huntsman is NOT electable (because he can't get the nomination). I've said that he would have the best chance against Obama, but I've acknowledged his lack of an avenue to get there. I've also NEVER argued for him. I've mentioned complimentary points (as with other candidates), however to characterize that as "arguing" or "advocating" for him is nothing short of hyperbole. Really?

 

5. What was the point of you telling me about your clients? What point are you making? Stay focused.

 

6. Also, most polls show Obama ahead in state AND national polls (not that it matters at this juncture anyway). Check out the aggregates: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html

You can navigate around and find the battleground state polls.

 

7. Then, you mention "straw man" a few times out of context. So you think that because you mention "straw man" after making a point in your most recent post, that that lessens the liklihood that you employed straw men in a previous post? Really?

 

Amateur hour.

 

8. The above, coupled with some ad hominems tossed in (e.g. "moron") for effect, and that about summarizes your post.

 

Try again?

Edited November 11, 2011 by Juror#8

[Magox]

Repeat after me juror8

 

 

 

 

The more I say that Romney will get crushed by Obama, the more it won't change the outcome...

 

 

 

[Magox]

And really, what independent gives a **** what hard line right winger Eric Ericsson has to say?

 

 

Where juror8 shows his willful ignorance is that the independents will decide who will win the 2012 elections, Period!

 

And considering how the right loathes Obama much like the left did with bush they will simply show up to vote against him....and considering how Obama has lost independents since the health insurance bill debacle and no matter what he has done to try to recapture them, he hasn't been able to move the needle.....even in the polls now, half of them have Romney winning, and this is during the looney primary season, when just about every candidates favor ability ratings go down.. Wait until the primaries are over, they will coalesce around Romney, and his polling numbers will consistently be anywhere from 2 -5% higher than Obamas.....and if Rubio accepts the vp nomination, "turn out the lights, party's over" Romney wins in a landslide election, recapturing nc, fl, Virginia,ind and Ohio

 

 

And what is "amateur hour" is ur citings of any polls of how romney is losing against Obama during loony primary season...the fact that he is up in just about half the polls when during primary seasons where many voters are so committed to their candidates that they can't bring themselves to voting for Romney for this hypothetical matchup speaks volumes... Once the hypothetical matchup turns into the actual matchup, those numbers will change in his favor....

 

 

Which is it? Are you so beholden to your illogical perspective that you just can't change your hardened view?

 

Or are you simply incapable of reason?

 

 

It's one of the two

Edited November 13, 2011 by Magox

[/dev/null]

and if Rubio accepts the vp nomination, "turn out the lights, party's over" Romney wins in a landslide election, recapturing nc, fl, Virginia,ind and Ohio

 

But Rubio won't accept the VP nomination.

 

My guess is that Romney wins the nomination easily, then picks VA Governor Bob McDonnell

[Magox]

But Rubio won't accept the VP nomination.

 

My guess is that Romney wins the nomination easily, then picks VA Governor Bob McDonnell

I wouldn't be so sure....one thing to say no now, another when the time actually comes and the intense internal pressure comes abound....I'm hoping for Rubio......Christie would be my second choice...christie would bring lots of energy to the campaign which is romneys weak political point and he would be a great attack dog on the campaign trail that would rev up conservatives

[Doc]

And really, what independent gives a **** what hard line right winger Eric Ericsson has to say?

 

 

Where juror8 shows his willful ignorance is that the independents will decide who will win the 2012 elections, Period!

 

And considering how the right loathes Obama much like the left did with bush they will simply show up to vote against him....and considering how Obama has lost independents since the health insurance bill debacle and no matter what he has done to try to recapture them, he hasn't been able to move the needle.....even in the polls now, half of them have Romney winning, and this is during the looney primary season, when just about every candidates favor ability ratings go down.. Wait until the primaries are over, they will coalesce around Romney, and his polling numbers will consistently be anywhere from 2 -5% higher than Obamas.....and if Rubio accepts the vp nomination, "turn out the lights, party's over" Romney wins in a landslide election, recapturing nc, fl, Virginia,ind and Ohio

 

 

And what is "amateur hour" is ur citings of any polls of how romney is losing against Obama during loony primary season...the fact that he is up in just about half the polls when during primary seasons where many voters are so committed to their candidates that they can't bring themselves to voting for Romney for this hypothetical matchup speaks volumes... Once the hypothetical matchup turns into the actual matchup, those numbers will change in his favor....

 

 

Which is it? Are you so beholden to your illogical perspective that you just can't change your hardened view?

 

Or are you simply incapable of reason?

 

 

It's one of the two

Bingo. Many independents like me no longer support Barry and will vote for any Republican challenger just so that Barry and his socialist vision for the country doesn't get further implemented (not that it will since Congress will likely be mostly Repub, meaning nothing will get done).

 

And excellent point about Barry leading the field of Repubs. Once it's down to one Repub candidate...