Romney/Ryan Lose 2012 Election Thread

[RedskinsFan44]

just as this is election is much deeper...but ABO is still useful and will be used the same way ABB was

Unsuccessfully

[twa]

Unsuccessfully

keep telling yourself that
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...untry-902.html

[Rdskns2000]

That is what the Obama / Biden thread is for.

Know that.

That's the thread that should be filling up. This thread here is about the loser, who honestly cares what he says anymore. He will not be winning, so everyone should be on the Obama thread and see what has in store for us.

---------- Post added September-15th-2012 at 10:41 PM ----------

exactly. Plus, based on what he's done the past 4 years, we have an idea. Recovery, slow growth, responsible foreign policy moves.

What we don'tknow are Romney's policies. Because he won't tell us much about himself. Will get go back to W's policies? No? Then what will be different? Paul Ryan won't discuss budget details until after the election.

---------- Post added September-15th-2012 at 09:47 AM ----------



More from the link

Thing is we don't need to know. Romney isn't winning or realistically has a shot of winning.

We need more specifics from Obama now.


---------- Post added September-15th-2012 at 10:43 PM ----------

You keep thinking that.

McCain had a pretty decent shot. He wasn't moderate by any means, but he was seen as a sane Republican who looked to be a breath of fresh air from George W. Bush. And then he surrounded himself with the same people who had been advising Bush, showed a fundamental lack of understanding about how to fix the economy, ramped up the war mongering at a time when the country was completely exhausted and tired of war. And then there was Sarah Palin.

McCain lost himself the election, for the same reason Mitt's probably going to lose; he came in looking like a "maverick", and then showed himself to be anything but. Just like Mitt, the Republican base (somehow) viewed him as too liberal and didn't like him, and so he pandered heavily to the base, which alienated the middle of the electorate and fired up the left.

Love it or hate it, people liked Obama's ideas and ideals more than McCain's.

But keep pretending your party doesn't keep ****ing up winnable elections by appealing strictly to the crazies.

Mccain was never going to win in 2008, regardless of whether or not there was a financial crisis. People had enough of Bush and Republicans and in 2008 the Dems were going to win. The financial crisis gave that final push. The election might have been closer without it but Obama was going to win.

---------- Post added September-15th-2012 at 10:47 PM ----------

keep telling yourself that
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...untry-902.html

Electorally, Obama is doing fine. This election is really about Ohio, Florida and any combination of 2-3 states(Virginia,Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada) that gives Romney the remaining votes to get to 270. I'll go ahead and give him Iowa and North Carolina.

Romney doesn't get the first 2 and he's done and so far, Obama is leading in both states.

[RedskinsFan44]

keep telling yourself that
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...untry-902.html

This would seem more pertinent to the question of who will win:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...bama-1171.html

Add to that Romney's proclivity to shoot himself in the foot weekly and his inability to produce warm and fuzzy feelings within the electorate the way Clinton and W could.

[twa]

The poll showing Romney winning from the most accurate pollster in 08?

[RedskinsFan44]

The poll showing Romney winning from the most accurate pollster in 08?

You know the story with Rasmussen, I am not going to re-litigate it now.

[FanboyOf91]

The poll showing Romney winning from the most accurate pollster in 08?

Nate Silver has Obama comfortably leading, bro.

[twa]

Nate Silver has Obama comfortably leading, bro.

I will take Rasmussen over Nate any day of the week,bro

what does Silvers poll show?...oh wait,he doesn't poll people

[AsburySkinsFan]

Are we still trotting out national polls and pretending they mean anything in terms of a Presidential election which is decided by electoral votes.
All that matters is who is leading in the key states.

BTW, twa you kept saying all the same things four years ago.

[RedskinsFan44]

Are we still trotting out national polls and pretending they mean anything in terms of a Presidential election which is decided by electoral votes.
All that matters is who is leading in the key states.

True, And that is even worse for Romney:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...llege_map.html

TWA, if you believe Romney will win there is money to be made:

http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/co...tractId=743475

[Spaceman Spiff]

Slightly off topic, but I did some google searching this morning because I was curious about something.

If the left loves to paint Romney as some out of touch rich guy, how come he's given so much money to charities?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/edwindur...as-given-away/

Wait...tax write offs, right?

[DallasCowboyFan156]

Slightly off topic, but I did some google searching this morning because I was curious about something.

If the left loves to paint Romney as some out of touch rich guy, how come he's given so much money to charities?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/edwindur...as-given-away/

Wait...tax write offs, right?

I think most would point out that his two largest charitable contributions according to that article are to The Mormon Church and BYU. Compared to how much money he has the amount he's given to actual charities is paltry. His contributions to the Tyler Foundation go almost exclusively to either Mormon or political causes. $4.5 million to Mormon Church, $500,000 to BYU, $100,000 to George Bush Library. $683,000 to the other 7 in the top ten or about $57,000 a year. Sorry, but I'm unimpressed since his charitable donations are going almost entirely to his church, which I don't consider to be a charity.

[RedskinsFan44]

Slightly off topic, but I did some google searching this morning because I was curious about something.

If the left loves to paint Romney as some out of touch rich guy, how come he's given so much money to charities?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/edwindur...as-given-away/

Wait...tax write offs, right?

You can be out of touch with the common man and charitable at the same time. The wealth that causes him to be out of touch with the financial realities of the average American makes it much easier for him to be charitable. "Out of touch" is not equal to "parsimonious" or "mean".

[AsburySkinsFan]

Yeah, it's the Left painting him as out of touch. Sorry Rmoney is holding that brush himself.

[Bang]

Charities are tax write offs. A lot of wealthy people are philanthropic because it saves them more in the long run to donate.

Fine by me, really, I don't hold that against anyone. It's win-win.

~Bang