Republican vice president candidates
August 11th, 2012 at 6:55:11 PM
permalink
John Fund today:
"Democrats will no doubt try to make Paul Ryan into a younger
version of the devil they have tried to paint Mitt Romney as. But
they should worry about fighting a campaign on fundamental
issues in a weak economy. Thats precisely how Jimmy Carter,
the last Democratic president to run for reelection during hard
times, wound up losing so badly that it not only cost Democrats
control of the U.S. Senate but damaging the liberal brand for
years afterwards."
"Democrats will no doubt try to make Paul Ryan into a younger
version of the devil they have tried to paint Mitt Romney as. But
they should worry about fighting a campaign on fundamental
issues in a weak economy. Thats precisely how Jimmy Carter,
the last Democratic president to run for reelection during hard
times, wound up losing so badly that it not only cost Democrats
control of the U.S. Senate but damaging the liberal brand for
years afterwards."
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
August 11th, 2012 at 8:38:19 PM
permalink
CNN article about the selection process
"I mean obviously his first qualification is that the person is qualified to be president and perceived to be qualified to be president."
I'm not sure that this *should* be disqualifying, but Ryan's only ever served in the House. That's usually considered to be a lack of qualification. Certainly, he's more qualified than Obama was in 2008, but much less qualified than Pawlenty or Portman or Jindal or Sandoval or....
"He's very methodical in making his decisions, and what he wants is a couple things. First of all, he wants all the information, and we went about a very thorough process in making sure we had a lot of information about a broad group. He also doesn't like to rule anything out until he has to," she said"
That's great when he has time to do it. But I've seen this about Romney a LOT. I hope he's capable of making faster decisions when it's required, and I hope he's able to delegate and trust his staff. It seems like he likes to deep dive into data, and that's simply not something that the President of the United States has time to do himself. If that's what he thinks the job is, well, that's a problem.
"I mean obviously his first qualification is that the person is qualified to be president and perceived to be qualified to be president."
I'm not sure that this *should* be disqualifying, but Ryan's only ever served in the House. That's usually considered to be a lack of qualification. Certainly, he's more qualified than Obama was in 2008, but much less qualified than Pawlenty or Portman or Jindal or Sandoval or....
"He's very methodical in making his decisions, and what he wants is a couple things. First of all, he wants all the information, and we went about a very thorough process in making sure we had a lot of information about a broad group. He also doesn't like to rule anything out until he has to," she said"
That's great when he has time to do it. But I've seen this about Romney a LOT. I hope he's capable of making faster decisions when it's required, and I hope he's able to delegate and trust his staff. It seems like he likes to deep dive into data, and that's simply not something that the President of the United States has time to do himself. If that's what he thinks the job is, well, that's a problem.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
August 11th, 2012 at 8:45:33 PM
permalink
Quote: rdw4potus
"I mean obviously his first qualification is that the person is qualified to be president and perceived to be qualified to be president."
.
I saw him talk today for the first time. I didn't want
to feel anything, but I was totally impressed. He's
immediately likable and reeks of All American Guy.
He must have something going for him if he got
elected to 7 terms in one of the most Lib states in
the country.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
August 11th, 2012 at 8:50:48 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBob
He must have something going for him if he got
elected to 7 terms in one of the most Lib states in
the country.
Yeah, as a member of the House of Representatives, it's not like he's winning statewide elections or anything.
And I'm really not sure that Wisconsin is one of the most Liberal states in the country. The state house is republican, the governor is republican, the state senate was republican until about 3 months ago. The US Senate is split, with the GOP favored to win the second seat this fall. The US House delegation is split 5R-3D.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
August 11th, 2012 at 8:52:03 PM
permalink
Considering the last VP Republican nominee, this one is more than qualified. In a few days, Ryan won't even be remembered as the VP nominee. He's a white, boring guy. This pick is actually something that Romney got right. Ryan is going to do well against Biden in the debate because Biden is going to club Ryan repeatedly with the Vouchers for Medicare scheme. Biden's goal will be to win Florida but in the end, no one will care. Not one vote will be cast because or in spite of Paul Ryan.Quote: rdw4potus"I mean obviously his first qualification is that the person is qualified to be president and perceived to be qualified to be president."
I'm not sure that this *should* be disqualifying, but Ryan's only ever served in the House. That's usually considered to be a lack of qualification.
Someday, joor goin' to see the name of Googie Gomez in lights and joor goin' to say to joorself, "Was that her?" and then joor goin' to answer to joorself, "That was her!" But you know somethin' mister? I was always her yuss nobody knows it! - Googie Gomez
August 11th, 2012 at 8:57:27 PM
permalink
Quote: s2dbakerNot one vote will be cast because or in spite of Paul Ryan.
From the Democrats' point of view, it's even better than that. A handful of votes in WI will be cast because of Ryan, and Romney will still lose the state. Portman might have delivered OH, and Bush or Rubio might have delivered FL. Sandoval would almost certainly have delivered NV.
Also, look for this picture in an attack ad near you:
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
August 11th, 2012 at 8:58:28 PM
permalink
Quote: AZDuffmanI can't remember a pick from the HoR either, though 1 POTUS was staight from the House, I forget who.
In 1880 James A. Garfield, Republican of Ohio (1863-1880) was the only POTUS who went directly from the House to winning the presidential election. He actually was the Senator-elect from the same election that made him President elect.
Abraham Lincoln had only served in the House, but not immediately before being elected president.
Ford was only elected to the House, and went on to the presidency by resignations.
William Miller was also a New York congressman (like Geraldine Ferraro/ Mondale). Miller was Barry Goldwater's VP candidate. Of course, both those elections were two of the biggest drubbings in history.
William Miller's daughter Stephanie has had a better career
August 11th, 2012 at 9:15:01 PM
permalink
Quote: rdw4potus
And I'm really not sure that Wisconsin is one of the most Liberal states in the country. .
Wisconcin has voted Democrat in the last 7 presidential elections. Wisconsin has had exactly one GOP senator since Joe McCarthy's death in 1957. I think that qualifies it as a blue state.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
August 11th, 2012 at 9:20:19 PM
permalink
What would it take to make election campaigns shorter? I'd settle for 90 days, rather than 1+ year.
At that the presidential campaigns in Mexico can be much longer. Arguably, well, not really arguably, El Principito ran for six years before this year's election. And he's already running for the next one. Counting the 2+ years he ran for the '06 election, he can log up to 14 years of a continuous campaign.
Of course, by then no one would be crazy enough to want to put up with him as president for 6 years...
At that the presidential campaigns in Mexico can be much longer. Arguably, well, not really arguably, El Principito ran for six years before this year's election. And he's already running for the next one. Counting the 2+ years he ran for the '06 election, he can log up to 14 years of a continuous campaign.
Of course, by then no one would be crazy enough to want to put up with him as president for 6 years...
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
August 11th, 2012 at 9:29:39 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobHe must have something going for him if he got
elected to 7 terms in one of the most Lib states in
the country.
Apparently he was noted in his high school yearbook as Prom King and biggest brown noser.
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
August 11th, 2012 at 9:36:14 PM
permalink
Well, there goes my vote. I rate all candidates on
what other teens thought of them in HS. Doesn't
everybody?
what other teens thought of them in HS. Doesn't
everybody?
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
August 11th, 2012 at 9:39:35 PM
permalink
Probably not but it reinforces a narrative.Quote: EvenBobWell, there goes my vote. I rate all candidates on
what other teens thought of them in HS. Doesn't
everybody?
Someday, joor goin' to see the name of Googie Gomez in lights and joor goin' to say to joorself, "Was that her?" and then joor goin' to answer to joorself, "That was her!" But you know somethin' mister? I was always her yuss nobody knows it! - Googie Gomez
August 11th, 2012 at 9:45:21 PM
permalink
Quote: s2dbakerProbably not but it reinforces a narrative.
What does it say about Wis? 7 times re-elected without
seeing his yearbook?
Morons.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
August 11th, 2012 at 9:47:55 PM
permalink
Not all of Wisconsin, just the morons* in his district.Quote: EvenBobWhat does it say about Wis? 7 times re-elected without
seeing his yearbook?
Morons.
*present company excepted.
Someday, joor goin' to see the name of Googie Gomez in lights and joor goin' to say to joorself, "Was that her?" and then joor goin' to answer to joorself, "That was her!" But you know somethin' mister? I was always her yuss nobody knows it! - Googie Gomez
August 11th, 2012 at 10:02:12 PM
permalink
Quote: s2dbakerNot all of Wisconsin, just the morons in his district.
Even worse. What did his grade school pals
think of him. Did he pick his nose in 2nd grade?
Was he vetted at ALL?
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
August 11th, 2012 at 11:20:25 PM
permalink
Whether you agree with his policy or not, Mr Ryan is a pretty likable guy and that is half the battle to getting elected to localized (not statewide) office and that includes congress. He also is generally respectable of his opponents and doesn't stoop to name calling or personal attacks, but rather stays focused on issues and differences in ideas. Unfortunately that quality already changed a bit today, as he began to attack the president and is likely to continue to do so as generally a vice presidential candidate has the responsibility of being an attack dog.
August 11th, 2012 at 11:58:54 PM
permalink
Quote: kewljUnfortunately that quality already changed a bit today, as he began to attack the president and is likely to continue to do
Gosh, thats a sad commentary. Obama has done such
an outstanding job, too. Fullfilled all his campaign
promises, has moved the country forward. Ryan is
is out of bounds attacking Obama on his record, he
should just stick to rabid personal attacks. You know,
the kind Obama is making..
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
August 12th, 2012 at 12:04:39 AM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobWhat does it say about Wis? 7 times re-elected without
seeing his yearbook?
The last time his district voted R for president was back in 1984 (They voted for Dukakis. How could anyone vote for him after Willie Horton? Seriously). Now the Republicans have two people running for office that have a proven ability to steal a blue electorate.
I'm just afraid that this is going to become the most divisive election ever. Whites vs. minorities, I know a handful of young liberal men voting for Romney.
Its - Possessive; It's - "It is" / "It has"; There - Location; Their - Possessive; They're - "They are"
August 12th, 2012 at 3:39:13 AM
permalink
Quote: kewljHe also is generally respectable of his opponents and doesn't stoop to name calling or personal attacks, but rather stays focused on issues and differences in ideas. Unfortunately that quality already changed a bit today, as he began to attack the president and is likely to continue to do so as generally a vice presidential candidate has the responsibility of being an attack dog.
I guess I define "personal attacks" a little bit different than some. If President Obama calls Romney's plan "Romney Hood" is that a personal attack or just an attempt to get people to remember something that he describes as taking from the middle class and giving to the rich? Just like "Obamacare" is not the name of the program; it is mostly a name to link the program to the person who championed it.
I also don't really see attacking the record of a person--Romney's business dealings or Obama's lack of promised transparency as "personal attacks"--they are both things we should look at when we consider who to elect. I guess faulting Romney for being successful or painting Obama as someone who appears to have ascended without any real experience is a bit personal, but it also is part of finding out who we are electing.
The thing about Ann Romney's horse? That is personal in my opinion. I'm sure there are examples on the other side, too.
The Republicans have to point out the clear differences they have with the current administration AND they have to clearly define their plan to improve things. They will also have to deal with the left wing bias in the traditional press. They have an uphill battle, of course, and they have 90 or so days to get the job done.
August 12th, 2012 at 3:51:13 AM
permalink
Quote: ahiromuI'm just afraid that this is going to become the most divisive election ever. Whites vs. minorities, I know a handful of young liberal men voting for Romney.
96% of blacks voted for President Obama in 2008. Blacks constituted 13% of the vote. If President Obama had only carried the black vote, he would have lost decisively. Yes, a few people may say stuff about him only being elected because of the black vote, but he truly was elected by a vote of all the people.
It is interesting that four years later we're worried about an election being "divisive" because some of the white people who elected President Obama may either skip the election or go the other way. President Obama will probably also carry less than 96% of the black vote this time--that is a huge number to maintain. Is that an issue? Like it or not, President Obama ran on "Hope" and "Change" and a whole bunch of promises last time. People of all races believed in him and those promises. Now is in an election where he has a record to defend--good or bad--and all of a sudden it is potentially a divisive situation drawn along lines of color if things don't go the same way as last time?
I think this election is simple--is what President Obama has accomplished in his term as president worthy of another term or is it time to make a change? If someone is open to the idea of a change, then they have to decide if Romney is the change they want or would they just rather hold the line and make changes later.
August 12th, 2012 at 9:24:54 AM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobWisconcin has voted Democrat in the last 7 presidential elections. Wisconsin has had exactly one GOP senator since Joe McCarthy's death in 1957. I think that qualifies it as a blue state.
Um, ok. Again, GOP governor, GOP state house, tied state senate, 5-3 GOP US house lead, split senate delegation, and its listed as a tossup in this years presidential election.
You pick the 2 (out of dozens) things that even kind of make it look like a liberal state, and think that's going to pass muster? And one of those things involves the words Joe McCarthy. LOL!!
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
August 12th, 2012 at 10:45:53 AM
permalink
Because of Obama's incompetence and the Tea Party,
Wisconcin has changed drastically since 2008. But
not so drastically that they didn't try and get the newly
and rightfully elected Republican governor recalled. Remember
that?
Wisconcin has changed drastically since 2008. But
not so drastically that they didn't try and get the newly
and rightfully elected Republican governor recalled. Remember
that?
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
August 12th, 2012 at 10:54:21 AM
permalink
Quote: RonC96% of blacks voted for President Obama in 2008. Blacks constituted 13% of the vote. If President Obama had only carried the black vote, he would have lost decisively. Yes, a few people may say stuff about him only being elected because of the black vote, but he truly was elected by a vote of all the people.
After it was clear that Obama was the clear favorite to win the election, you can probably say with some conviction that a last minute surge of enthusiasm among the black voter lead to his unlikely victory in North Carolina and possibly Virginia. These two states will more than likely return to the Republicans this year.
In a tight election it is popular to claim that one particular ethnic or socioeconomic group swung the election. The Presidential election of 1960 was so close, that many Latinos felt that they won the election for JFK. The claim is as valid as saying that young women won the election for the handsome president.
The choice of Ryan as a running mate sends a pretty strong sobering statement. I think it says that the election is not about diplomatic affairs, demographic groups, or oratory skills. Here is a guy without a lot of previous power, whose chief claim to fame is that he has written budgets that take broad strokes at sacred cows.
August 12th, 2012 at 11:26:39 AM
permalink
Quote: pacomartin
The choice of Ryan as a running mate sends a pretty strong sobering statement.
It will be very hard for Obama to smear Ryan. He's
one of the smartest and most respected members
of congress. He's well liked on both sides. Romney
hit a home run with him, no Sarah Palin here. And
he can't see Russia from his house, either.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
August 12th, 2012 at 11:41:33 AM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobAnd he can't see Russia from his house, either.
I'm also betting that he hasn't visited all 57 states, either!!
August 12th, 2012 at 11:50:18 AM
permalink
EVEN BOB " Wisconcin has voted Democrat in the last 7 presidential elections. "
How dare you bring up an insignificant fact like that to boost your argument. I mean we are talking about Presidential elections. Please remember that in the future !!!!
How dare you bring up an insignificant fact like that to boost your argument. I mean we are talking about Presidential elections. Please remember that in the future !!!!
August 12th, 2012 at 1:27:06 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobIt will be very hard for Obama to smear Ryan. He's
one of the smartest and most respected members
of congress. He's well liked on both sides. Romney
hit a home run with him, no Sarah Palin here. And
he can't see Russia from his house, either.
Neither can Sarah Palin. Tina Fey can, though.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
August 12th, 2012 at 1:33:59 PM
permalink
As for Ryan himself, to begin with, what policies turned Clinton-era surpluses into Bush-era deficits? In large part, two tax cuts, two wars and a massive prescription drug benefit, and Ryan voted for all of them. (He also voted for TARP) His “serious” debt-reduction plan doesn’t balance the budget until 2040. By contrast, the House Progressive Caucus budget, whatever else you think of it, balances the budget within a decade.
August 12th, 2012 at 1:42:22 PM
permalink
Quote: buzzpaffAs for Ryan himself, to begin with, what policies turned Clinton-era surpluses into Bush-era deficits? In large part, two tax cuts, two wars and a massive prescription drug benefit, and Ryan voted for all of them. (He also voted for TARP) His “serious” debt-reduction plan doesn’t balance the budget until 2040. By contrast, the House Progressive Caucus budget, whatever else you think of it, balances the budget within a decade.
Yet again, we must be reminded that the government is not supposed to run surpluses.
Ryan has proposed serious entitlement reform, Obama has proposed bailing out every industry just like the auto bailout.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
August 12th, 2012 at 1:46:36 PM
permalink
Ryan’s approach to Medicare spending would transform the current open-ended benefit into a voucher program. The idea is to let seniors shop for their own care under a capped benefit, making them more cost-sensitive consumers and limiting the government’s financial exposure. It would replace the fee-for-service system in place now that pays doctors for whatever care they deliver, which most specialists say has contributed mightily to the rising costs of Medicare, and health care generally.
REALLY !
REALLY !
August 12th, 2012 at 1:55:47 PM
permalink
Quote: RonC
I think this election is simple--is what President Obama has accomplished in his term as president worthy of another term or is it time to make a change? If someone is open to the idea of a change, then they have to decide if Romney is the change they want or would they just rather hold the line and make changes later.
If it were as simple as you say, Romney would be ahead double digits in the polls. So far that hasn't happened. Yesterday and today is the largest lead President Obama has enjoyed this year at 4.6 percent, so it would seem that given the choice between a president who has underperformed and Mr Romney as the alternative, so far people have rejected the alternative. That could change, but I think it is a tough hill for Romney to climb, because there are some people that are judging him and disliking him for the wrong reasons, The Mormon issue and because he is rich, although they probably wouldn't admit these are the reasons.
So far Mr Romney has just stood and said, "the president has done a poor job, I can do better". And while that may be true, it doesn't seem to be enough. Maybe it should be. Maybe it would have been in a different era, even not long ago. But it isn't working in this election, with THIS alternative choice. He has to come up with a better reason to change minds of these folks who have already initially rejected him. I have no idea what that might be or if there even is such a thing that could do the trick. There are a couple more job reports due out before the election, but those numbers aren't going to change that much. Unemployment is going to be 8.2, 8.3, 8.4% range and that normally would be enough to doom an incumbant president, but it seems to have been factored in already. For unemployment numbers to have an effect they would have to jump dramatically, probably back to 9.0% these last 2 months and no body on either side expects that. In other words: Romney needs a game changer. So far he hasn't found it.
August 12th, 2012 at 1:59:56 PM
permalink
Quote: kewljIf it were as simple as you say, Romney would be ahead double digits in the polls.
How the hell do you figure that? Thats exactly the reason
Reagan won in 1980 and he was never ahead by double
digits in Aug. You make a lot of presumptive statements
to bolster your stance, but none of them are provable.
They're just your hopeful opinions.
Quote: kewljSo far Mr Romney has just stood and said, "the president
has done a poor job, I can do better". And while that may
be true, it doesn't seem to be enough.
Is the election over, did I miss it? And he's done a hell of a
lot more than just say that. Are you following the campaign
at all? Its mid August, the public typically ignores a presidential
race until both conventions are over and the debates have
begun. Sheesh.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
August 12th, 2012 at 2:29:58 PM
permalink
Yes. I am a political junkie. I follow very closely, watching all the different news outlets as well as following polls on a number of different sites. Are YOU following at all? You didn't even know who Paul Ryan was 2 days ago, Bob. lol
The Reagan Carter election is hardly the same Bob. Trust me Mitt Romney is no Ronald Reagan. Reagan always had a strong favorability rating as a candidate. People liked him. Romneys likability rating is far below the Presidents.
The conventions are meaningless. Romney will get a 4-5 point bump after his convention simply because of 4 days of solid TV exposure and after the democratic convention it will swing the other way, to right were it is now. The debates do matter. More precisely the first debate. That is the one that has the largest audience. But it is hard to improve your numbers by doing well at the debate. The better chance is if your opponent makes a blunder. Based on the experience of both candidates, Romney is the one more likely to make a blunder. He did so time and time again, in the primary debates. That is why it took him so long to put the nomination away. I mean Rick Santorum! Really? He couldn't put away this guy and all his baggage?
Your thoughts about the election not starting until after Labor day is sooo 20th century. Now a days the elections start 2 years out, and with multi channel 24 hour news cycles and 24 hour access via internet, people mind are made up long before they used to be. Now-a-days the election can be OVER by labor day. It was 4 years ago and it is starting to head in that direction this cycle. Right or wrong, Obama's team has done a good job of defining Mr Romney in their terms. He has been on the defensive most of the time and at times appears to have no answer.
Now about this hopeful thinking Bob. I never said I was for Obama. I am a registered Democrat, but I consider myself an independent. I vote republican about 40% of the time. I did vote for Obama in '08. I am not intending to vote for him this time. The comments I have made are NOT wishful thinking. Just this political junkie's observations.
The Reagan Carter election is hardly the same Bob. Trust me Mitt Romney is no Ronald Reagan. Reagan always had a strong favorability rating as a candidate. People liked him. Romneys likability rating is far below the Presidents.
The conventions are meaningless. Romney will get a 4-5 point bump after his convention simply because of 4 days of solid TV exposure and after the democratic convention it will swing the other way, to right were it is now. The debates do matter. More precisely the first debate. That is the one that has the largest audience. But it is hard to improve your numbers by doing well at the debate. The better chance is if your opponent makes a blunder. Based on the experience of both candidates, Romney is the one more likely to make a blunder. He did so time and time again, in the primary debates. That is why it took him so long to put the nomination away. I mean Rick Santorum! Really? He couldn't put away this guy and all his baggage?
Your thoughts about the election not starting until after Labor day is sooo 20th century. Now a days the elections start 2 years out, and with multi channel 24 hour news cycles and 24 hour access via internet, people mind are made up long before they used to be. Now-a-days the election can be OVER by labor day. It was 4 years ago and it is starting to head in that direction this cycle. Right or wrong, Obama's team has done a good job of defining Mr Romney in their terms. He has been on the defensive most of the time and at times appears to have no answer.
Now about this hopeful thinking Bob. I never said I was for Obama. I am a registered Democrat, but I consider myself an independent. I vote republican about 40% of the time. I did vote for Obama in '08. I am not intending to vote for him this time. The comments I have made are NOT wishful thinking. Just this political junkie's observations.
August 12th, 2012 at 2:30:42 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobHow the hell do you figure that? Thats exactly the reason
Reagan won in 1980 and he was never ahead by double
digits in Aug. .
Comparing Reagan to Romney is your biggest mistake. Romney seems unlikely to get any "teflon" nick, in fact , it appears he's flypaper to negatives, even in his own party.
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
August 12th, 2012 at 2:41:33 PM
permalink
Quote: kewljYou didn't even know who Paul Ryan was 2 days ago, Bob. lol
I was making a joke, duh. How can I not know
who he is, he was a major opponent of Obummercare.
Quote: kewljReagan always has a strong favorability rating as a candidate.
Are you JOKING? He was thought of as a war mongering
movie actor buffoon by many many people. I was there,
I remember. He was old, he was the star of Bedtime for
Bonzo.
Quote: kewljRomney is the one more likely to make a blunder. he did so time
and time again, in the primary debates. That is why it took him
so long to put the nomination away.
HUH? They changed the primary process so the winner
no longer gets all the delegates. They only get as many
as they earned. This was done to STOP any one candidate
from winning early. For a 'political junkie' you are certainly
missing a lot of key info. You just added A and B and came
up with C without even knowing what the facts are.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
August 12th, 2012 at 2:54:42 PM
permalink
Ya know what's even a better predictor than the polls? The betting lines. Currently Romney is at +175 to +180, while Obama is at -150. What does that tell you Bob? The smart money isn't going with Romney. But if you are so sure I am wrong, throw 10 grand on Romney and turn it into 28 grand. lol
August 12th, 2012 at 3:02:36 PM
permalink
Quote: kewljThe smart money isn't going with Romney.
The smart money? Thats an oxymoron if I ever
heard one. What makes you think they're smart.
Aren't you even going to address the fact that
you're careful analysis of Romey's faults are
based on the fact that you don't even know
how the primary process works now? You
probably think I'm being harsh, but I hate
it when people throw they're opinions around
like they're facts, and they don't even know
what the real facts are.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
August 12th, 2012 at 3:18:11 PM
permalink
I am well aware that the selection process was changed to proportional delegates in the majority of the later contests. That's irrelevant. We are talking about a well known, well financed politician, running for president for the second consecutive cycle, who has been doing nothing else for the last 4 years, except running for president, who couldn't put away a has been that had no credible chance and a complete unknown. 2 weeks before the Iowa caucuses, Santorum was polling at less than 2%. Polls showed that it wasn't because people didn't want to vote for him, but most had no idea who he was. I was lucky enough to have lived in Pennsylvania from 2001 until 2009, so I was well aware. lol
For what it's worth. I don't think you are harsh. I think you are a jack-ass. To be honest, anyone who has accumulated 7400 posts in 2 years, has issues. Apparently you like to hear yourself talk. That's why I was reluctant to answer your private messages.
For what it's worth. I don't think you are harsh. I think you are a jack-ass. To be honest, anyone who has accumulated 7400 posts in 2 years, has issues. Apparently you like to hear yourself talk. That's why I was reluctant to answer your private messages.
August 12th, 2012 at 3:32:33 PM
permalink
Quote: kewljI am well aware that the selection process was changed to proportional delegates in the majority of the later contests..
Then why did you say "That is why it took him
so long to put the nomination away" if you knew
there was no way he could wrap up a win until
it was almost over? Your not making sense.
Obviously you had no idea they had changed
the rules.
Quote: kewljI think you are a jack-ass. To be honest, anyone
who has accumulated 7400 posts in 2 years, has issues.
Sigh. Here we go. You can't win the argument
by distorting the facts, so now starts the personal attacks.
Nothing ever changes. They always told us in
debate class in college that when your opponent
gets personal, he's run out of ammo.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
August 12th, 2012 at 3:33:45 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobThen why did you say "That is why it took him
so long to put the nomination away" if you knew
there was no way he could wrap up a win until
it was almost over? Your not making sense.
Obviously you had no idea they had changed
the rules.
Sigh. Here we go. You can't win the argument
by distorting the facts, so now starts the personal attacks.
Nothing ever changes. They always told us in
debate class in college that when your opponent
gets personal, he's run out of ammo.
August 12th, 2012 at 3:36:45 PM
permalink
Quote: rxwineComparing Reagan to Romney is your biggest mistake. Romney seems unlikely to get any "teflon" nick,.
But you're thinking of Reagan after 8 years as
president, not as he was before the first
election. He had no teflon then, quite the
reverse. He was routinely mocked and
laughed at, even by his own party. He
never would have been elected if people
weren't sick to death of Carter and would
have elected Daffy Duck just to get him
out of there.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
August 12th, 2012 at 3:41:21 PM
permalink
Quote: kewljQuote: EvenBob
Then why did you say "That is why it took him
so long to put the nomination away" if you knew
there was no way he could wrap up a win until
it was almost over? Your not making sense.
Obviously you had no idea they had changed
the rules.
Sigh. Here we go. You can't win the argument
by distorting the facts, so now starts the personal attacks.
Nothing ever changes. They always told us in
debate class in college that when your opponent
gets personal, he's run out of ammo.
There's no post here, just a quote.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
August 12th, 2012 at 3:45:23 PM
permalink
Bob, my reference to "putting away the nomination", was not referring to actually getting the 1144 delegates needed to OFFICIALLY wrap up the nomination. I was referring to getting to the point that your opponents stop actively running and the media all but conceded the nomination to you. That was supposed to happen very early on for Romney, but it didn't. He couldn't put away a field that his own part considered weak, even though he outspent his opponents 10-1, sometime 20-1 in most contests. THAT is what makes Mitt Romney a weak candidate. His own party had a very difficult time accepting him and that has carried over to the general election, where he is trailing a very weak incumbent president, who has no business winning a second term, but is likely to simply because the public appears to be rejecting Romney.
You seem to think you own this board and insist on arguing every single topic with anyone who doesn't see things your way. Nit-picking every little detail. I have no idea what you are like in person, but as far as the message board, you are just unpleasant.
You seem to think you own this board and insist on arguing every single topic with anyone who doesn't see things your way. Nit-picking every little detail. I have no idea what you are like in person, but as far as the message board, you are just unpleasant.
August 12th, 2012 at 3:54:06 PM
permalink
I rather enjoy it :) It'll be fun to quote Bob from these threads in November, after the election. That's assuming Bob hasn't moved to another country that's less communist, like China.Quote: kewljYou [Evenbob] seem to think you own this board and insist on arguing every single topic with anyone who doesn't see things your way. Nit-picking every little detail. I have no idea what you are like in person, but as far as the message board, you are just unpleasant.
Someday, joor goin' to see the name of Googie Gomez in lights and joor goin' to say to joorself, "Was that her?" and then joor goin' to answer to joorself, "That was her!" But you know somethin' mister? I was always her yuss nobody knows it! - Googie Gomez
August 12th, 2012 at 4:10:00 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobBecause of Obama's incompetence and the Tea Party,
Wisconcin has changed drastically since 2008. But
not so drastically that they didn't try and get the newly
and rightfully elected Republican governor recalled. Remember
that?
I sure do remember that. Being such a very liberal state, I'm sure that they prevailed easily. Wait, what's that? They failed? Oh, well then...thanks for making my point for me:-)
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
August 12th, 2012 at 4:11:30 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobBut you're thinking of Reagan after 8 years as
president, not as he was before the first
election. He had no teflon then, quite the
reverse. He was routinely mocked and
laughed at, even by his own party. He
never would have been elected if people
weren't sick to death of Carter and would
have elected Daffy Duck just to get him
out of there.
Reagan napped through his second term while GHW Bush ran the country. He'd have been mocked then, too, if it weren't tragically inappropriate.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
August 12th, 2012 at 4:13:18 PM
permalink
well, if you leave out his last year or two -- his brain was clouding up with the Alzheimers
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
August 12th, 2012 at 4:15:23 PM
permalink
Quote: rdw4potusI sure do remember that. Being such a very liberal state, I'm sure that they prevailed easily. Wait, what's that? They failed? Oh, well then...thanks for making my point for me:-)
I don't think he made his point for you at all. The mere fact that the unions were able to get so much support for their hissy-fit shows WI to be a very liberal state. If they were in a southern state they would have not gotten nearly the support they did get. I know liberals are not very intellectually curious, but those of us who are know just because every liberal agenda item does not pass does not make the conservative, just because a conservatie item does not pass does not make the state liberal.
For example, the gay marrige referrendum failed in CA a few years back. Does that mean CA is not liberal?
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
August 12th, 2012 at 4:19:09 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobBut you're thinking of Reagan after 8 years as
president, not as he was before the first
election.
Reagan, even when he blundered, as far as I can remember generally got the best of the moment. (pre-election too) in verbal sparring
Do you remember differently?
That's one reason why Romney is no Reagan.
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
August 12th, 2012 at 4:23:09 PM
permalink
Quote: AZDuffman
For example, the gay marrige referrendum failed in CA a few years back. Does that mean CA is not liberal?
Go to Riverside or San Bernardino or Orange County and tell them that they're liberal and see what happens:-) I don't think WI is all that liberal (maybe the 15th or 20th most liberal state), but even if it was, Ryan's district is tremendously conservative and that's the only place he's ever won a race for anything.
And, I'm not sure why you think that Liberals aren't intellectually curious. That's probably measurable. We could look at Liberal investigative journalists, or Liberal essayists, or Liberal academics... Plus, the Republican Party of TX actually has a policy plank against the teaching of higher-level thought. So, you know, there's that.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
