Romney/Ryan Lose 2012 Election Thread

[thebluefood]

https://twitter.com/mpoppel

these polls make my head spin:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

Veeeerry interesting.

The likelihood of a Romney upset is looking more and more possible every day, especially after the State Department basically admitted that they dropped the ball on Benghazi yesterday.

[HOF44]

Veeeerry interesting.

The likelihood of a Romney upset is looking more and more possible every day, especially after the State Department basically admitted that they dropped the ball on Benghazi yesterday.

His problem seems to be the electoral college. From everything I've read on that it will be much easier for Obama to hit 270 than Mitt.

[thebluefood]

His problem seems to be the electoral college. From everything I've read on that it will be much easier for Obama to hit 270 than Mitt.

Yeah, that's what I'm seeing. All the electoral maps give Obama an edge as far as the locked up states are concerned. What's interesting, though, is that Real Clear Politics gives Obama a much smaller lead than most other news organizations. They're even putting Michigan and Pennsylvania in play, while others have them as locks for Obama.

[NLC1054]

His problem seems to be the electoral college. From everything I've read on that it will be much easier for Obama to hit 270 than Mitt.

Basically, Romney desperately needs Ohio to go red in order to have a clear shot at the presidency.

If Romney doesn't win Ohio, then he'd need to keep all the states McCain had in 2008, plus he'll have to flip a couple states that went blue last time back to red. Without Ohio Romney's chances at the presidency plummet just on a pure numbers game. If Obama gets Ohio and Florida then it's pretty much a done deal.

And this is all assuming that these next few debates go well for Romney and that the Democrats can't stop the bleeding of the first debate. If any momentum whatsoever swings back to Obama's side, it gets that much harder for Romney to win mathematically.

[thebluefood]

Basically, Romney desperately needs Ohio to go red in order to have a clear shot at the presidency.

If Romney doesn't win Ohio, then he'd need to keep all the states McCain had in 2008, plus he'll have to flip a couple states that went blue last time back to red. Without Ohio Romney's chances at the presidency plummet just on a pure numbers game. If Obama gets Ohio and Florida then it's pretty much a done deal.

And this is all assuming that these next few debates go well for Romney and that the Democrats can't stop the bleeding of the first debate. If any momentum whatsoever swings back to Obama's side, it gets that much harder for Romney to win mathematically.

Do you think yesterday's congressional hearings might be a torpedo into the side of the Obama Campaign?

[USS Redskins]

The polls (even from the heavily biased NBC, CNN and abc news) are showing big swings towards Romney. Figuring the biased ones go 3-4 pts in favor of Obama... Then this looks like trouble for Barry.

[twa]

Comparing the security budget (hundreds of millions) to a charger for a volt(100,000) is kind of a joke. Talk about "playing games"...

Why do ya'll wish to ignore the State dept testifying that FUNDING had nothing to do with the decisions on security in Libya?

Why do you ignore State dept funding is at a high?

Why do you ignore your talking point is drawn from a asinine budget request?

Why do you ignore the vast military personnel available?

Why do you ignore the waste and excesses by State Dept?

Why do you ignore the lies?

Look over there....SQUIRREL

[NLC1054]

Do you think yesterday's congressional hearings might be a torpedo into the side of the Obama Campaign?

It depends on if those hearings get any play.

Right now, on both sides, that hearing is getting crushed under the pre-debate hype. And it would also depend on Romney's campaign being able to talk about those hearings without seeming like they're trying to gain political ground based on a terrorist attack; Romney's already walking that line after he went on the offensive while the attack on the consulate was happening, and especially after he kept telling the story of the dead Navy SEAL. Romney's general lack of bonafides on foreign policy hurt him here; part of what steadied Obama was when he bought the much more experienced Joe Biden on to the ticket. Romney and Ryan have zero experience in that field, so I'd imagine it's hard for them to walk that line and seem genuine.

It's also tricky ground for the Republicans to walk on, because Republicans voted against increased funding for embassy security. These two disasters of policies essentially end up nullifying one another; the Republicans can argue that the Obama administration allowed these attacks to happen then tried to cover up the actual cause, and the Democrats can argue that in their never ending quest to screw Obama they voted against funding more security forces.

That's why I think we haven't seen either campaign really attack those two talking points.

[Predicto]

It depends on if those hearings get any play.

Right now, on both sides, that hearing is getting crushed under the pre-debate hype. And it would also depend on Romney's campaign being able to talk about those hearings without seeming like they're trying to gain political ground based on a terrorist attack; Romney's already walking that line after he went on the offensive while the attack on the consulate was happening, and especially after he kept telling the story of the dead Navy SEAL. Romney's general lack of bonafides on foreign policy hurt him here; part of what steadied Obama was when he bought the much more experienced Joe Biden on to the ticket. Romney and Ryan have zero experience in that field, so I'd imagine it's hard for them to walk that line and seem genuine.

It's also tricky ground for the Republicans to walk on, because Republicans voted against increased funding for embassy security. These two disasters of policies essentially end up nullifying one another; the Republicans can argue that the Obama administration allowed these attacks to happen then tried to cover up the actual cause, and the Democrats can argue that in their never ending quest to screw Obama they voted against funding more security forces.

That's why I think we haven't seen either campaign really attack those two talking points.

Well, that's why you have Issa and your other surrogates do it.

---------- Post added October-11th-2012 at 12:14 PM ----------

The polls (even from the heavily biased NBC, CNN and abc news) are showing big swings towards Romney. Figuring the biased ones go 3-4 pts in favor of Obama... Then this looks like trouble for Barry.

Romney may win, but the assumption that the polls are biased is getting really old.

[Larry]

Romney may win, but the assumption that the polls are biased is getting really old.

You mean, the decades long, flat out declaration, that everything that wasn't written by the GOP is biased?

[thebluefood]

It depends on if those hearings get any play.

Right now, on both sides, that hearing is getting crushed under the pre-debate hype. And it would also depend on Romney's campaign being able to talk about those hearings without seeming like they're trying to gain political ground based on a terrorist attack; Romney's already walking that line after he went on the offensive while the attack on the consulate was happening, and especially after he kept telling the story of the dead Navy SEAL. Romney's general lack of bonafides on foreign policy hurt him here; part of what steadied Obama was when he bought the much more experienced Joe Biden on to the ticket. Romney and Ryan have zero experience in that field, so I'd imagine it's hard for them to walk that line and seem genuine.

It's also tricky ground for the Republicans to walk on, because Republicans voted against increased funding for embassy security. These two disasters of policies essentially end up nullifying one another; the Republicans can argue that the Obama administration allowed these attacks to happen then tried to cover up the actual cause, and the Democrats can argue that in their never ending quest to screw Obama they voted against funding more security forces.

That's why I think we haven't seen either campaign really attack those two talking points.

Yeah, no one really looks good after the hearings. It might be best for both sides to not talk about it much.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Considering how much money we spend on security services overseas, in particular at Embassies (and I consider myself an expert on this as I worked for a company that specializes in overseas security for DoD and DoS) the "Republicans didn't vote to fund security services" rings very hollow.

[The Evil Genius]

I now know why the South votes GOP.






btw - good for him for being a health nut.

[twa]

Considering how much money we spend on security services overseas, in particular at Embassies (and I consider myself an expert on this as I worked for a company that specializes in overseas security for DoD and DoS) the "Republicans didn't vote to fund security services" rings very hollow.

Very hollow indeed

“It has been suggested that budget cuts are responsible for a lack of security in Benghazi, and I’d like to ask Miss Lamb,” said Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R., California). “You made this decision personally. Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which lead you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?”

“No, sir,” said [Charlene] Lamb.

[The Evil Genius]

Again, unless you understand how resource breakdown works at the government level - it's hard to really effectively argue about why such and such department spent money on one thing and not the other.