The Official Mitt Romney thread

[Magox]

I like Ron Paul because he's crazy enough to actually change things. I don't agree with all his changes but I do think if he were elected (not happening, I know), he'd shake things up for better and worse.

 

But Secretary of Treasury Ron Paul and Chairman of the Fed Ron Paul...that would be bad indeed. Romney is going to lose to Obama in a landslide but if he were to pull a rabbit out of his ass and win, he has enough sense not to appoint Ron Paul treasury secretary. Paul is a big picture idea guy--he would never be a candidate for those positions. He'd have no idea what to do. What's he going to do as Fed Chairman? Walk in on day 1 and turn off the lights? Yeah, that would be good for the world economy.

Hold on a second, you provide a link quoting "Romney is going to lose to Obama in a landslide" and then I go on to read the RPA polls in the link YOU provided that shows Obama up a whole 1.8% which is within the statistical margin of error. That's a "landslide" ? JA you're a riot dude.

 

 

Here let me help you out, you see, elections are decided in the battleground states, battleground states are these states where they are seen as tossups, usually the one who wins the "battleground" states wins the election.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-01-27/swing-states-poll/52871890/1

 

Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney essentially ties Barack Obama in the nation's key battlegrounds, a USA TODAY/Gallup Swing States survey finds, while rival Newt Gingrich now trails the president by a decisive 14 percentage points.

 

The poll of the dozen states likely to determine the outcome of November's election addresses the electability argument that has driven many Republicans: Which GOP contender has the best chance of denying Obama a second term?

 

In a head-to-head race, Romney leads Obama by a statistically insignificant percentage point, 48%-47%, the survey finds.

 

Yep "landslide"

Edited February 4, 2012 by Magox

[B-Man]

Hold on a second, you provide a link quoting "Romney is going to lose to Obama in a landslide" and the link you provided shows Obama up 1.8% which is within the statistical margin of error. That's a landslide? And here I was expecting to see something resembling a "landslide". JA you're a riot dude.

 

 

I thought that was pretty funny also,

 

and, in fact, that "popular vote" type of poll shows little anyway, since the state by state (Electoral College.....Thank God) shows Mr Obama facing a "landslide" all right, for the GOP.

 

 

Of course, it could change, but any more mis-steps like the administration declaration of war against Catholics and this could br over by the conventions.

 

 

.

[PastaJoe]

I thought that was pretty funny also,

 

and, in fact, that "popular vote" type of poll shows little anyway, since the state by state (Electoral College.....Thank God) shows Mr Obama facing a "landslide" all right, for the GOP.

 

 

Of course, it could change, but any more mis-steps like the administration declaration of war against Catholics and this could br over by the conventions.

 

 

.

 

Yeah, because they've declared "war" on Catholics by requiring them not to pick and choose what health care their workers should be covered for.

 

It won't be a landslide, but when Obama focuses on Romney and the Republican House who are obstructing any progress, it will be a comfortable win.

[B-Man]

Yeah, because they've declared "war" on Catholics by requiring them not to pick and choose what health care their workers should be covered for.

 

 

 

There is really no point in replying, based on your other posts,

 

 

but your limited interpretation of what has occurred due to the administration's anti-religious liberty fiat, is both laughable and sad (for you).

 

 

 

.

[Magox]

Yeah, because they've declared "war" on Catholics by requiring them not to pick and choose what health care their workers should be covered for.

 

It won't be a landslide, but when Obama focuses on Romney and the Republican House who are obstructing any progress, it will be a comfortable win.

 

That's right, I suppose that's why even a leftwing (*^*&%^$^#like E.J Dionne even characterized Obamas decision of rustbelt Democratic Catholics "throwing them under the bus"

 

 

But you're such a partisan moron you can't see the decision because you lack objectivity.

 

Also, the rest of the country doesn't agree with what Obama has been doing as "progress"

[Doc]

Yeah, because they've declared "war" on Catholics by requiring them not to pick and choose what health care their workers should be covered for.

 

It won't be a landslide, but when Obama focuses on Romney and the Republican House who are obstructing any progress, it will be a comfortable win.

Wait until Romney starts-in on how the Dems had full control of congress for 2 years and did nothing but pass a failed stimulus and Obamacare, that most people didn't and don't want. Coupled with unemployment being above 8% and gas prices in the mid-$3's.

[3rdnlng]

I thought that was pretty funny also,

 

and, in fact, that "popular vote" type of poll shows little anyway, since the state by state (Electoral College.....Thank God) shows Mr Obama facing a "landslide" all right, for the GOP.

 

 

Of course, it could change, but any more mis-steps like the administration declaration of war against Catholics and this could br over by the conventions.

 

 

.

 

 

I was looking for that electoral poll so I could post it here. I saw it a few days ago but couldn't remember where and a search doesn't bring it up. Do you know where it can be found?

[DC Tom]

 

A landslide? With those numbers? The +5/6 polls are from PPP, Democrat pollster, and NBC, a Democrat network. The rest of the recents show a tie --- with Obama having the soap box of the presidency and Romney still duking it out for the nomination.

 

With the electoral college and the changes from the census?

 

And those are with a SOTU "bounce."

 

And in 2004, Bush's reelection was "a mandate". And I recall people in 2008 saying Obama won by "a landslide" with 53% of the vote.

 

But Obama did get roughly two-thirds of the electoral college.

 

 

It all depends on how you present the numbers.

[IDBillzFan]

Wait until Romney starts-in on how the Dems had full control of congress for 2 years and did nothing but pass a failed stimulus and Obamacare, that most people didn't and don't want. Coupled with unemployment being above 8% and gas prices in the mid-$3's.

I look forward to everyone being reminded that a first-ever downgrade of the country's credit rating is on the list of "historic" events that happened on Obama's watch.

[Magox]

I look forward to everyone being reminded that a first-ever downgrade of the country's credit rating is on the list of "historic" events that happened on Obama's watch.

AND that in every single recession since the Great Depression, this has been the most anemic "recovery" we'd seen.

[Doc]

I look forward to everyone being reminded that a first-ever downgrade of the country's credit rating is on the list of "historic" events that happened on Obama's watch.

Yeah, but whose fault was that? And hey, he did kill Osama.

[B-Man]

I was looking for that electoral poll so I could post it here. I saw it a few days ago but couldn't remember where and a search doesn't bring it up. Do you know where it can be found?

 

 

Sorry, the usual ones that I refer to are all several months old.

 

Here is the latest one that I could find

 

Election Projection

 

It has Romney slightly ahead in the popular vote, but it hedges its bets by projecting Mr. Obama winning 290 electoral votes (need 271)

 

this is based on him winning all 7 states were he is listed as "weak" (Romney at 2)

 

if he losses just one (FL) or two others, it switches the whole thing.

 

Thanks.

 

.

Edited February 4, 2012 by B-Man

[3rdnlng]

Sorry, the usual ones that I refer to are all several months old.

 

Here is the latest one that I could find

 

Election Projection

 

It has Romney slightly ahead in the popular vote, but it hedges its bets by projecting Mr. Obama winning 290 electoral votes (need 271)

 

this is based on him winning all 7 states were he is listed as "weak" (Romney at 2)

 

if he losses just one (FL) or two others, it switches the whole thing.

 

Thanks.

 

 

 

 

 

The one I saw had Romney with 315 electoral votes.

[Magox]

There are so many variables that could alter the outcome of the elections, who Romney's VP selection is, campaign strength, verbal gaffes, who's election demonization machine works more effectively and last but not least the economy. If the perception of the economy strengthens from where it it, it lessens Romney's chances at winning, if the economy sputters back to what we saw last year, it increases his odds of winning, if the economy falls back to near recession like it has two since the recession then Romney is all but guaranteed a victory. I would say that is the most important variable, the economy.

[B-Man]

The one I saw had Romney with 315 electoral votes.

 

Not suprising, any swing towards the GOP in the so-called "battleground" states, where Gov. Romney is polling well, and there is no way that Mr. Obama can repeat.

 

as Mr. B.B. King would say.................."the thrill is gone"

 

 

.

[DC Tom]

AND that in every single recession since the Great Depression, this has been the most anemic "recovery" we'd seen.

 

"...because of the failed policies of the Bush Administration." [/Pelosi]

 

 

It plays in Pomona, sadly.

[B-Man]

"...because of the failed policies of the Bush Administration." [/Pelosi]

 

 

It plays in Pomona, sadly.

 

 

Thats all right Tom,.................California's a lost cause.

 

Happily, in Peoria, and the rest of Middle America, the administration's lies are more and more known.

 

 

 

.

[IDBillzFan]

Thats all right Tom,.................California's a lost cause.

Keep it up, wiseass, and we'll come to your town and ban the toys at your McDonalds, too. Because everyone knows that if Happy Meals didn't have toys, parents would feed their kids a salad instead.

[B-Man]

Keep it up, wiseass, and we'll come to your town and ban the toys at your McDonalds, too. Because everyone knows that if Happy Meals didn't have toys, parents would feed their kids a salad instead.

 

 

 

Don't "toy" with me, tough guy................ One quick call to my family in Nevada, they all jump up and down at once,

 

and California breaks off and drifts away....................lol

 

 

.

[John Adams]

1328370258[/url]' post='2376711']

 

A landslide? With those numbers? The +5/6 polls are from PPP, Democrat pollster, and NBC, a Democrat network. The rest of the recents show a tie --- with Obama having the soap box of the presidency and Romney still duking it out for the nomination.

 

With the electoral college and the changes from the census?

 

And those are with a SOTU "bounce."

Obama is winning in almost every poll and he hasn't started campaigning. Romney can't fire up anyone to care.

All,anyone cares about is the economy and it's doing better. Not because of Obama, but no one will vote for change if signs point up. Should be an easy win. Maybe even Reagan Mondale blowout Landslide.

Yes Magox, almost every poll has Obama ahead, many within each of their margins of error. Guess we'll see. We all know you have a bone for Mitt.

 

 

 

Edited February 7, 2012 by John Adams