(05-20-2012 07:46 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(05-20-2012 07:33 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(05-20-2012 12:17 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  There was a large enthusiasm gap in 2010. There is no such gap this year.

110 million people voted in 2008. 35 million voted in 2010.

Turnout for a mid-term is never as high as a presidential. It's silly to compare anything about the two.

You made my point. The anti-Obama anger isn't as widespread as you think.

(05-20-2012 09:00 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  You made my point. The anti-Obama anger isn't as widespread as you think.

Yeah, it really is. The anger is what will get the GOP to the polls. As I said earlier the anger at Obama far outweighs the dissatisfaction with Romney. GOP voters won't sit this one out. They want him gone.

Obama is losing white, working class men. He's losing support of women. The youth vote won't be there for him this time cause there is zero excitement like there was in 2008 for him. They'll go back to their historically low turnout rate.

Obama now has a record as opposed to rhetoric. And the majority don't like what he's done. Romney is more trusted on the economy than Obama in nearly every poll and it is the economy that will decide this election.

If his numbers don't improve on his handling of the economy, he will lose.

(05-20-2012 09:37 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(05-20-2012 09:00 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  You made my point. The anti-Obama anger isn't as widespread as you think.

Yeah, it really is. The anger is what will get the GOP to the polls. As I said earlier the anger at Obama far outweighs the dissatisfaction with Romney. GOP voters won't sit this one out. They want him gone.

Obama is losing white, working class men. He's losing support of women. The youth vote won't be there for him this time cause there is zero excitement like there was in 2008 for him. They'll go back to their historically low turnout rate.

Obama now has a record as opposed to rhetoric. And the majority don't like what he's done. Romney is more trusted on the economy than Obama in nearly every poll and it is the economy that will decide this election.

If his numbers don't improve on his handling of the economy, he will lose.

THere are a large number of racists like you that hate Obama in the Confederate states but the reality is that number actually small compared to the US population as a whole.

(05-20-2012 09:37 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(05-20-2012 09:00 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  You made my point. The anti-Obama anger isn't as widespread as you think.

Yeah, it really is. The anger is what will get the GOP to the polls. As I said earlier the anger at Obama far outweighs the dissatisfaction with Romney. GOP voters won't sit this one out. They want him gone.

Obama is losing white, working class men. He's losing support of women. The youth vote won't be there for him this time cause there is zero excitement like there was in 2008 for him. They'll go back to their historically low turnout rate.

Obama now has a record as opposed to rhetoric. And the majority don't like what he's done. Romney is more trusted on the economy than Obama in nearly every poll and it is the economy that will decide this election.

If his numbers don't improve on his handling of the economy, he will lose.

The dems have been losing the hard working white male vote for 20 years. Obama will probably lose that by 15+ points. The white woman vote is going to counter that. Women are not feeling Romney. Latinos aren't feeling Romney. He will lose that by 40 points. The black vote is going to Obama 96-3. The Asian vote will also go to Obama by 15+ points. It's really just white men that are dissatisfied with Obama. They become less important with each election cycle.

Another wildcard is Romney's flip flipping. If he flips on earlier conservative positions, his vote will leave him.

(05-20-2012 09:47 PM)RobertN Wrote:  THere are a large number of racists like you that hate Obama in the Confederate states but the reality is that number actually small compared to the US population as a whole.

That's what's funny about you Robert. What you say about me is totally untrue so it's meaningless.

What I say about you is the gospel truth. You're an idiot. You offer absolutely nothing to this board or society as a whole. You are truly worthless in every way a person can be. Total waste of oxygen.

You're nothing. If you didn't wallow in it so much I might pity you.

(05-20-2012 09:49 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  The dems have been losing the hard working white male vote for 20 years.

True. But he made serious inroads with them in the last election.

Quote:The white woman vote is going to counter that. Women are not feeling Romney.

Dems typically enjoy a double digit lead with women. The latest CBS/NYT poll actually shows Romney winning them. A month ago Obama was leading by 6 points. Actually not good given historic trends for dems.

Women aren't buying the war on women lie and polls are showing it. Romney won't win the women vote I can't imagine. But the problem Obama has is few of them actually believe Romney wants a war on women. If Santorum were the nominee you could get that to stick.

Quote:Latinos aren't feeling Romney. He will lose that by 40 points.

How many of them show up to vote though? And Obama's record on the economy, his failure to deliver anything in the way of immigration reform, or even really talk about it much, and latest position on gay marriage all hurt him. He needs them to get out and vote, but they're not really motivated to do so. And if Romney has Rubio on the ticket there's no chance Obama pulls a 40 point win.

Quote:The black vote is going to Obama 96-3.

Irrelevant. Dems always carry 90+% of the black vote. And you have to get them out to vote. They're not as excited about him now as they once were. And his position on gay marriage hurts him with them as well.

Quote:The Asian vote will also go to Obama by 15+ points.

Name for me one single swing state where this group makes a difference. The largest pockets of them are in states Obama will win anyway.

Quote:Another wildcard is Romney's flip flipping. If he flips on earlier conservative positions, his vote will leave him.

Won't happen. Romney's staked out his positions at this point. He won't move from them.

Niner is right. That 1000 dollar wager is open to any of you. Obama is not going to be re-elected.

There are so many ABO voters this year it's unreal. Due to my job and traveling to all over the nation, it's not just in the south, Robert, you anti-southern f*ck.

(05-20-2012 10:42 PM)Rebel Wrote:  There are so many ABO voters this year it's unreal. Due to my job and traveling to all over the nation, it's not just in the south, Robert, you anti-southern f*ck.

I hate the south. THat is true. But you are still wrong about Obama losing.

(05-20-2012 10:58 PM)RobertN Wrote:  I hate the south. THat is true.

Hater.

The south doesn't hate you, Robert. It just thinks you're an idiot.

(05-20-2012 10:42 PM)Rebel Wrote:  There are so many ABO voters this year it's unreal. Due to my job and traveling to all over the nation, it's not just in the south, Robert, you anti-southern f*ck.

I thought the same thing about W. There was a strong anti-Bush vote in 2004. However, there was a strong pro-Bush vote that was very silent. There was no strong pro-Kerry vote. Kerry was a better politician and had a better resume than Romney. Huckabee, McCain, Jeb could all beat Obama. I don't think Romney can.

(05-20-2012 09:51 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(05-20-2012 09:47 PM)RobertN Wrote:  THere are a large number of racists like you that hate Obama in the Confederate states but the reality is that number actually small compared to the US population as a whole.

That's what's funny about you Robert. What you say about me is totally untrue so it's meaningless.

What I say about you is the gospel truth. You're an idiot. You offer absolutely nothing to this board or society as a whole. You are truly worthless in every way a person can be. Total waste of oxygen.

You're nothing. If you didn't wallow in it so much I might pity you.

You were a bully in school weren't you?

(05-21-2012 08:32 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  I thought the same thing about W. There was a strong anti-Bush vote in 2004. However, there was a strong pro-Bush vote that was very silent. There was no strong pro-Kerry vote. Kerry was a better politician and had a better resume than Romney. Huckabee, McCain, Jeb could all beat Obama. I don't think Romney can.

The economy wasn't bad in 2004. It is now.

(05-21-2012 08:32 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(05-20-2012 10:42 PM)Rebel Wrote:  There are so many ABO voters this year it's unreal. Due to my job and traveling to all over the nation, it's not just in the south, Robert, you anti-southern f*ck.

I thought the same thing about W. There was a strong anti-Bush vote in 2004. However, there was a strong pro-Bush vote that was very silent. There was no strong pro-Kerry vote. Kerry was a better politician and had a better resume than Romney. Huckabee, McCain, Jeb could all beat Obama. I don't think Romney can.

I think the anti-Bush vote was a lot stronger in 2008, when he wasn't running, than in 2004, when he was. As long as they keep pretending that Shrub did a great job, the republicans will have to deal with the anti-Bush vote.

(05-21-2012 08:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As long as they keep pretending that Shrub did a great job, the republicans will have to deal with the anti-Bush vote.

No one pretends that. He's never even brought up, except by Obama and democrats.

(05-21-2012 08:56 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(05-21-2012 08:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As long as they keep pretending that Shrub did a great job, the republicans will have to deal with the anti-Bush vote.

No one pretends that. He's never even brought up, except by Obama and democrats.

But when he is inevitably brought up, the republican response is to defend him, not to differentiate from him. And as long as they can get republicans to defend him in response, democrats will keep bringing it up.

(05-21-2012 08:53 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(05-21-2012 08:32 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  I thought the same thing about W. There was a strong anti-Bush vote in 2004. However, there was a strong pro-Bush vote that was very silent. There was no strong pro-Kerry vote. Kerry was a better politician and had a better resume than Romney. Huckabee, McCain, Jeb could all beat Obama. I don't think Romney can.

The economy wasn't bad in 2004. It is now.

That's just it. Economies are all local. The national economy isn't great but some of these local economies are pretty good. For example, Iowa and New Hamshire have unemployment rates of 5%. Virginia and Wisconsin are doing much better than the national average. Ohio has also come back.

(05-21-2012 08:32 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(05-20-2012 10:42 PM)Rebel Wrote:  There are so many ABO voters this year it's unreal. Due to my job and traveling to all over the nation, it's not just in the south, Robert, you anti-southern f*ck.

I thought the same thing about W. There was a strong anti-Bush vote in 2004. However, there was a strong pro-Bush vote that was very silent. There was no strong pro-Kerry vote. Kerry was a better politician and had a better resume than Romney. Huckabee, McCain, Jeb could all beat Obama. I don't think Romney can.

It was based on the war, not the economy. Also to say there was a strong anti-Bush feeling at the time, wrong. The very vocal Dims were out there, as they are with any R, but the independents were still benefitting from a strong economy. This election will be about the one issue Obama doesn't want to talk about, the economy. He's toast.

(05-21-2012 09:01 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-21-2012 08:56 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(05-21-2012 08:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As long as they keep pretending that Shrub did a great job, the republicans will have to deal with the anti-Bush vote.

No one pretends that. He's never even brought up, except by Obama and democrats.

But when he is inevitably brought up, the republican response is to defend him, not to differentiate from him. And as long as they can get republicans to defend him in response, democrats will keep bringing it up.

When/where do these defenses occur? I never hear anyone defend Bush. Everytime dems bring him up I just hear republicans point out Obama doesn't want to take responsibility for his own failures.

(05-21-2012 09:15 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(05-21-2012 09:01 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-21-2012 08:56 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(05-21-2012 08:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As long as they keep pretending that Shrub did a great job, the republicans will have to deal with the anti-Bush vote.

No one pretends that. He's never even brought up, except by Obama and democrats.

But when he is inevitably brought up, the republican response is to defend him, not to differentiate from him. And as long as they can get republicans to defend him in response, democrats will keep bringing it up.

When/where do these defenses occur? I never hear anyone defend Bush. Everytime dems bring him up I just hear republicans point out Obama doesn't want to take responsibility for his own failures.

I would just like to hear one republican say,
1) the "Bush tax cuts" were a mistake because they weren't offset with spending cuts and they weren't focused in places that would create growth, and
2) the wars were mistakes because you should never fight a war that you don't intend to win.

In 2000, Shrub promised to decrease the size of the federal government and get us out of the nation-building business. He did neither, and in fact he was about as far from doing either as it is possible to be. Republicans need to get back to the message that Shrub abandoned.