Decision 2012

I've admitted all along that Romney is not a stellar candidate but that he (or just about anyone else) would be better than the incumbent occupant. The tape this week is a setback and there have been more unforced errors than I'd like but, amazingly, the race is still close according to most polling data. I don't think I'd be too comfortable if i were the President--being this close with about 6-7 weeks to go should feel pretty uncomfortable.

President Obama's "Why Can't We Be Friends" foreign policy is not working very well with the Muslims who hate us and will always hate us. I've seen the reasoning behind why they hate us explained in other threads in some very well thought-out ways; the bottom line is that he has done nothing to really make them want to like us besides say that he would like them to like us. It won't work. The current attempt to blame everything happening over there on some video is falling apart.

Candidate Romney needs to add some direction to his candidacy right away. His message wanders even when there is no gaffe to correct (and they all make gaffes in the course of an election cycle) and that makes it harder to recover from things like the tape. For example, I think he should attack President Obama the instant anyone in the administration claims unemployment is falling when the reason it is falling seems to be because people just gave up on hunting for jobs. He should have those facts and figures together and use them often.

They also released some huge figures on the cost of Obamacare recently--that double the number of people who were originally estimated would pay the "penalty", now known as a "tax" since the Supreme Court declared it to be one, for not having alternative health care. While there are a myriad of reasons for people to pay this "tax", and I think that some of the words coming out of the administration will seem callous to people already on very tight budgets:

"This (analysis) doesn't change the basic fact that the individual responsibility policy will only affect people who can afford health care but choose not to buy it," said Erin Shields Britt of the Health and Human Services Department. "We're no longer going to subsidize the care of those who can afford to buy insurance but make a choice not to buy it."

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49100802

Coming from the side that promised not to raise taxes on anybody making under $250,000, that sounds like saying they are going to raise taxes on some folks making under $250,000.

I'm not a political strategist and I will fully admit that I don't know all the ins and outs of every issue but I think I do know when a candidate is lacking direction as well as when a President is failing. The Republicans have a candidate doing the former and the Democrats have an incumbent doing the latter.

It will be interesting to see how it turns out...

Yeah, I don't think you have to worry about the house Bob. But, the problem, or potential problem, for the republicans, is that if the presidential race is less competitive than originally thought and the President wins these swings states by 5-6% or larger is that then that next group of contest starts to come into play. 23 seats currently 'leaning' republican, 21 which are currently held by republicans, lots of room for democratic pickups, especially in these swing states. I see a lot of those lean republican seats in swing states. No where near that point yet, but if these trends continue, that is when you will see these super pacs really dump money into these seats that are/were thought to be safe.

Quote: kewlj

But, the problem, or potential problem, for the republicans,.

You still don't get it. Mid term elections are NEVER EVER
about the challenger. They are always about the incumbent.
Nobody gives a rip if Romney is a saint or a dick, its about
can we stomach 4 more years of Obama. Or Carter. Or Bush.
Or Bush Sr. Or Clinton. Or Reagan. If the answer is no, get
rid of the bum. It really doesn't matter who the challenger
is. Even if its an old washed up second rate Hollywood actor.

Quote: EvenBob

You still don't get it. Mid term elections are NEVER EVER
about the challenger. They are always about the incumbent.
Nobody gives a rip if Romney is a saint or a dick, its about
can we stomach 4 more years of Obama. Or Carter. Or Bush.
Or Bush Sr. Or Clinton. Or Reagan. If the answer is no, get
rid of the bum. It really doesn't matter who the challenger
is. Even if its an old washed up second rate Hollywood actor.

Certainly some truth there, BUT, you have discounted changing times. It isn't 1980 where people saw the candidates only if they went to a rally or on the evening news. 24 hour news channels. 24/7 internet instant access new cycles. People see and hear every word the candidate says. They see the candidates every single day. Likeability is more of a factor than even 20 years ago. Especially in close elections. In 2000, gore seemed by most people, to be more qualified to be president. But he came off as stiff and unlikable. George W had a very likeable personality. In 2004, almost identical situation. An awful lot of people didn't like the direction the country was heading under Bush. But Kerry was not very likable. Bush, whether you agreed with his politics or not was folksy and likeable. This year it works the other way. A lot of people, myself included don't think President Obama has done a great job, hasn't kept many promises (few politicians can or do), and probably doesn't deserve a second term. But they like him personally. More than Mr Romney, who has had a very difficult time connecting with people.

This likability only is an issue in close elections. John McCain was very likeable. A war hero respected by almost everyone. But the election was never really close so it didn't matter as much. This likability factor shouldn't come in to play, but in this age of technology and over-coverage, it does. I wouldn't compare this year to any model election of more than 15 to 20 years tops. It's a different animal IMO.

Quote: kewlj

Certainly some truth there, BUT, you have discounted changing times.

But times haven't changed. The vast majority of voters
don't pay all that much attention. They really do go into
the voting booth and act very selfishly. Am I better off?
Does my future look better? Does my kids future look
better? How does my bank account look? Am I worried
about my job?

Thats what it came down to a hundred years ago and
nothing has changed. A worried and concerned electorate
always throws the current bum out, how much worse
can the next guy be. And they are uncannily correct, its
usually better with the new guy.

Again, Bob, I have to say I don't think you are looking at this objectively. You are seeing what you want to happen, rather than what IS happening. I fear you are setting yourself up for major disappointment.

Objectively based on recent data, I suspect we are looking at 4 more years of President Obama, a slight democratic controlled senate, maybe even 50/50 with VP breaking ties and a republican controlled house, which would equal 4 more years of mostly gridlock. The only variation I see could possible see would be a slight republican senate, but that looks less likely to me each day. We will know soon enough. :)

Maybe if mitt didn't embrace such a radical social agenda he wouldn't be having such a hard time.

Quote: WongBo

Maybe if mitt didn't embrace such a radical social agenda he wouldn't be having such a hard time.

You mean that if you want birh control you should buy the pills yourself, marrige is one man and one woman, delivered babies should not be allowed to die on an OR table, and other things like that?

Please tell me what on earth is so radical about the GOP on social issues? I mean, the Dems put up a person that said you and I should pay for elective sex change operations. Yet the GOP is "radical?"

Quote: AZDuffman

You mean that if you want birh control you should buy the pills yourself, marrige is one man and one woman, delivered babies should not be allowed to die on an OR table, and other things like that?

Please tell me what on earth is so radical about the GOP on social issues? I mean, the Dems put up a person that said you and I should pay for elective sex change operations. Yet the GOP is "radical?"

No--if you have paid for insurance, birth control should be covered. That's not "free."

Either cover birth control, or expect more abortions or children that will need free health care and free food because their parents couldn't afford them. You can't have it both ways.

And in same-sex marriages, there's no need for birth control and the incidence of unexpected pregnancies is pretty much zero. Sounds ideal if you don't feel like paying for either one!

I don't get it--why should a private company or church, or an insurance policy provided by them, be required to provide birth control if it is against the beliefs of the organization?

How about this--work, pray, or go to school somewhere else!!

Quote: RonC

I don't get it--why should a private company or church, or an insurance policy provided by them, be required to provide birth control if it is against the beliefs of the organization?

How about this--work, pray, or go to school somewhere else!!

America has the separation of church and state. If you don't like it, live somewhere else!!

Quote: FarFromVegas

No--if you have paid for insurance, birth control should be covered. That's not "free."

He is promising it as "free." And there is no reason that birth control should be a required coverage if the insurance comapany does not want it to be. Some will offer policies with coverage and some without, let the purchaser decide. Is simply a case of Obama giving OPM away, ikn this case mine and everyone else who purchases health insurance.

Quote:

Either cover birth control, or expect more abortions or children that will need free health care and free food because their parents couldn't afford them. You can't have it both ways.

How about a better idea--encourage adoption as we did pre-early 1970s. And cut all these handouts, message being "if you have kids you get to pay for them." I'm a bit tired of the assumption people are not supposed to pay for their kids, living life without consequences.

Quote:

And in same-sex marriages, there's no need for birth control and the incidence of unexpected pregnancies is pretty much zero. Sounds ideal if you don't feel like paying for either one!

Not part of the same point. My point is Liberals and Democrats want to change the definition of marrige from what it has been for thousands of years to something biologically unnatural yet somehow people say "the republicans are extremists on social issues."

Calling homosexuality "unnatural" indicates complete ignorance of the facts of animal and mammal and human biology.






stop hating on the gay giraffes!

Quote: AZDuffman

He is promising it as "free." And there is no reason that birth control should be a required coverage if the insurance comapany does not want it to be. Some will offer policies with coverage and some without, let the purchaser decide. Is simply a case of Obama giving OPM away, ikn this case mine and everyone else who purchases health insurance.



How about a better idea--encourage adoption as we did pre-early 1970s. And cut all these handouts, message being "if you have kids you get to pay for them." I'm a bit tired of the assumption people are not supposed to pay for their kids, living life without consequences.



Not part of the same point. My point is Liberals and Democrats want to change the definition of marrige from what it has been for thousands of years to something biologically unnatural yet somehow people say "the republicans are extremists on social issues."

Fine--I ain't paying for your Viagra or Cialis then.

I encourage adoption--by same sex partners who can't have kids of their own!

Just because you've been doing things for years doesn't make it right. Ask women and minorities.

I doubt we'll ever agree on things. C'est la vie.

Quote: WongBo

Calling homosexuality "unnatural" indicates complete ignorance of the facts of animal and mammal and human biology.

Not really. Humans are the only species that engages in sex for pleasure and thus the only that engages in homosexuality. Homosexuality makes reproduction impossible. It is unnatural for these reasons. The "ick" factor people feel when thinking about it, provided they have not been brainwashed to think it is natural, is one more clue. As is that disdain for it anthropologically shows up in societies that have had no contact with each other all across the world. All the "teaching" and conditioning that needs to be done to make people think it is OK just adds to this. All the TV shows and movies put out since the mid 1970s always, nearly without exception, portray gays in a positive light only. Mandaory education in CA schools to codify this. It takes all of that to get to the homophile culture we have today.

You want to call that "natural?" Tell it to the college-kids wherever they hang out. They will probably believe you. Those of us who grew up before the gay-propoganda push know better.

Quote: FarFromVegas

Fine--I ain't paying for your Viagra or Cialis then.

GOOD. We need to stop paying for elective products people should pay for on their own. There is plenty more we should gut from covered items and procedures.

Quote: FarFromVegas

America has the separation of church and state. If you don't like it, live somewhere else!!

Really? That is the reason that a church (as an employer) cannot decide not to provide birth control for their employees? Or a private company? Why is it up to the government to decide what individual establishments can do or not do regarding insurance?

No one is forcing you to pray at that church, work there, or go to a school run by a particular religion. If you choose to work, pray, or be educated there, you need to follow their rules. You have the option of doing those things were they believe in what you believe in...

I personally don't have a problem with birth control being provided under insurance but why should I want to control what others believe they should or should not cover?

We have separation of church and state but that doesn't mean the church should be restricted from following their beliefs...it would only matter if there was no choice but to go to that church.

Quote: AZDuffman

Not really. Humans are the only species that engages in sex for pleasure and thus the only that engages in homosexuality. Homosexuality makes reproduction impossible. It is unnatural for these reasons. The "ick" factor people feel when thinking about it, provided they have not been brainwashed to think it is natural, is one more clue. As is that disdain for it anthropologically shows up in societies that have had no contact with each other all across the world. All the "teaching" and conditioning that needs to be done to make people think it is OK just adds to this. All the TV shows and movies put out since the mid 1970s always, nearly without exception, portray gays in a positive light only. Mandaory education in CA schools to codify this. It takes all of that to get to the homophile culture we have today.

You want to call that "natural?" Tell it to the college-kids wherever they hang out. They will probably believe you. Those of us who grew up before the gay-propoganda push know better.

Humans are not the only species that engage in sex for pleasure.
The "ick" factor? Really? Must have missed that one in all my years of school.
Homosexuality is present in all societies, throughout all cultures, disdain for it is not.
Teaching that it is wrong has the same effect as teaching that it is right.
Left to their own devices, many children experiment with all forms of sexual behavior.
It is the teaching that it is wrong that leads many to believe that, not any inherent right or wrong in the behavior.
Not all movies nor tv portrays gay in a positive light, I could cite hundreds of examples.

Your homophobia is sort of exaggerated and reactionary. Why don't you focus on something productive?

AZ - Humans are the only species that engages in sex for pleasure?

From now on, base your arguments on truths, so we can begin to discuss them. The first sentence being completely untrue renders your whole post useless.

Quote: FinsRule

AZ - Humans are the only species that engages in sex for pleasure?

From now on, base your arguments on truths, so we can begin to discuss them. The first sentence being completely untrue renders your whole post useless.

This article talks about sex for pleasure...

"If we were to actually "do it like they do on the Discovery channel," we'd only be getting it on a few days each month. So the next time I hear somebody quote the Nine Inch Nails song Closer, I'll remember that I'd rather do it like a human, thank you very much."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/13/sex-for-pleasure_n_1090811.html

It seems that there MAY be some sex for fun out there in the animal world but that it also appears that most actual sex is for reproduction as you read farther in the article...

Quote: RonC

Really? That is the reason that a church (as an employer) cannot decide not to provide birth control for their employees? Or a private company? Why is it up to the government to decide what individual establishments can do or not do regarding insurance?
.

You've just made a good argument against privatizing. At least the government is less likely to restrict your access based on what individuals believe.

Pharmacists refusing to fill prescription for bc. Landlords refusing to rent to people living in sin. Cab drivers who won't transport people to bars because of their religious beliefs about alcohol.

Quote: RonC

This article talks about sex for pleasure...

"If we were to actually "do it like they do on the Discovery channel," we'd only be getting it on a few days each month. So the next time I hear somebody quote the Nine Inch Nails song Closer, I'll remember that I'd rather do it like a human, thank you very much."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/13/sex-for-pleasure_n_1090811.html

It seems that there MAY be some sex for fun out there in the animal world but that it also appears that most actual sex is for reproduction as you read farther in the article...

"do it like they do on the Discovery channel," Is a line from the Bloodhound Gang's "The Bad Touch", not Nine Inch Nails.

Quote: RonC

I don't get it--why should a private company or church, or an insurance policy provided by them, be required to provide birth control if it is against the beliefs of the organization?

How about this--work, pray, or go to school somewhere else!!

It is against the beliefs of insurance companies to pay for anything. Yet we still mandate that they do so. Tehy need to realize that BC coverage in is their best interests.

Quote: AZDuffman

Not really. Humans are the only species that engages in sex for pleasure and thus the only that engages in homosexuality. Homosexuality makes reproduction impossible. It is unnatural for these reasons.

Really??


http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

Back to the topic of this thread. Intrade odds for president Obama victory have crossed 70% for first time today @ 71.9% (A very big one day jump). And Intrade is the one market that has been lagging behind. Betfair and smarkets are approaching 80% (77.5%).
The predictwise average is 74.1%, again a high point. Likelihood of democrat control of senate comes in a whopping 83%!

Now on to the polls. In addition to being ahead in almost every swing state. 4 polls out of North Carolina in past 2 days, including a Fox poll have Obama ahead in North Carolina, which is a major and quick turnaround. The most shocking poll today. Arizona. Romney 48%, Obama 45%. Arizona in play? Unthinkable for the republicans. I suspect it has more to do with the large senior population being turned off by the republican ideas on medicare than an instant love for Obama. But whatever the reason, Republicans spending money time and resources in places like Arizona and North Carolina is a disaster for them.

Arizona in play. lol Just think, President Obama could end up with a LARGER victory than 4 years ago. lol

I'm not voting for Obama, but I have $500 on him lol.

Quote: rxwine

You've just made a good argument against privatizing. At least the government is less likely to restrict your access based on what individuals believe.

I think that private companies will pretty much do what needs to be done as long as they can make a fair profit on their work. The government? Their track record is not so good when it comes to running things.

Quote: rxwine

Pharmacists refusing to fill prescription for bc.

The won't get the business from people who need BC. Won't the market help sort that out?

Quote: rxwine

Landlords refusing to rent to people living in sin.

Can't businesses pretty much decide who they serve and don't serve? I know they have rules to follow providing against discrimination, but why is it wrong for an owner of a property to say that he only wants married couples living there? Isn't it his property?

Quote: rxwine

Cab drivers who won't transport people to bars because of their religious beliefs about alcohol.

So? Again, their business; theiir choice.

The government will always have to do some things and protect some people. There is a difference between that and trying to protect everyone at all costs.

Quote: kewlj

Back to the topic of this thread. Intrade odds for president Obama victory have crossed 70% for first time today @ 71.9% (A very big one day jump). And Intrade is the one market that has been lagging behind. Betfair and smarkets are approaching 80% (77.5%).
The predictwise average is 74.1%, again a high point. Likelihood of democrat control of senate comes in a whopping 83%!

Now on to the polls. In addition to being ahead in almost every swing state. 4 polls out of North Carolina in past 2 days, including a Fox poll have Obama ahead in North Carolina, which is a major and quick turnaround. The most shocking poll today. Arizona. Romney 48%, Obama 45%. Arizona in play? Unthinkable for the republicans. I suspect it has more to do with the large senior population being turned off by the republican ideas on medicare than an instant love for Obama. But whatever the reason, Republicans spending money time and resources in places like Arizona and North Carolina is a disaster for them.

Arizona in play. lol Just think, President Obama could end up with a LARGER victory than 4 years ago. lol

The polls are showing a swing in President Obama's direction. The one question that comes up about them is how they are skewed by party in their polling. They may be right on; they may be off by a few points.

I'd say that President Obama is ahead (sadly) but the race is far from over. I'd love to see the Dems fall victim to this succes and rest on their laurels for a bit...

Romney has a proven strategy that worked for him in the primaries. Outspending his opponents multiple times over. Get out your wallets if you want him to win.

Quote: RonC

The polls are showing a swing in President Obama's direction. The one question that comes up about them is how they are skewed by party in their polling. They may be right on; they may be off by a few points.

I'd say that President Obama is ahead (sadly) but the race is far from over. I'd love to see the Dems fall victim to this succes and rest on their laurels for a bit...

Polls are all over the place. Some by dem leaning organizations and news outlets. Some by repub leaning organizations like Rasmussen and news outlets like Fox. Some by groups that you have never even heard of, so you wonder about their credibility. But this is where an organization like real clear politics has credibility. They take the average of all these polls, left and right alike.

I am by no means trying to suggest this race is over, but the president has opened a clear lead, whether by his own doing or the lackluster (being kind) performance of his opponent. There is a lot of time left. Often these things tighten up in the last few days, so I guess that could be encouraging for the repubs.

Quote: rxwine

Romney has a proven strategy that worked for him in the primaries. Outspending his opponents multiple times over. Get out your wallets if you want him to win.

He had a huge money advantage in the primaries. Not as much in the general election. He had a significant advantage money wise until recently. President Obamas campaign has out raised Romney in last 2 months and currently has 33 million more on hand. I suspect as Romney looks less and less likely to win, his financing is harder to come by. Now the Repub super pacs still have a huge advantage over the democrats. they will throughout this election. Speculation is that at some point, they may stop spending money on Romney and focus their financial efforts on some close senate and house races. One repub source says Karl Rove is already leaning in that direction with his super pac and his media buys this week back that up, dumping money on media buys in Nevada and Montana senate races. Montana was thought to be an almost sure republican win and pick up of John Tester's seat, but now is neck and neck.

Quote: RonC

The government will always have to do some things and protect some people. There is a difference between that and trying to protect everyone at all costs.

Did the market work out discrimination against minorities or women, or gays, or children, or animal conditions, or religious discrimination or workers rights on its own? Really? Seriously.

Quote: rxwine

Romney has a proven strategy that worked for him in the primaries. Outspending his opponents multiple times over. Get out your wallets if you want him to win.

I see reports saying there is a cash flow issue on Romney's side at this point but it looks like there is a good bit of money yet to be spent:

Romney cash on hand + RNC cash on hand = $126 million.

Obama cash on hand + DNC cash on hand = $95 million.

The RNC is saying it has even more:

• Cash On Hand: Romney/RNC $168.5 million vs. Obama/DNC: $125.1 million
• RNC: $76.5 million vs. DNC: $7.1 million

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/328002/look-closely-cash-hand-numbersnbspnbspnbsp#

Romney isn't the only one who believes in outspending the competition. Look back four short years:

Q: Who spent more money on advertising, McCain or Obama?

A: Overall, Obama has outspent McCain by nearly 3-to-1, but in the closing week it’s been closer to 5-to-1.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/advertising-money-mccain-vs-obama/

Quote: rxwine

Did the market work out discrimination against minorities or women, or gays, or children, or animal conditions, or religious discrimination or workers rights on its own? Really? Seriously.

You used my statement to prove my statement:

The government will always have to do some things and protect some people. There is a difference between that and trying to protect everyone at all costs.

The government cannot be all things to all people. We don't need the government in every aspect of our life. I didn't say we didn't need the government to potect anyone but we don't need it running everything either. There is a balance between government and private that works well.

Quote: RonC

Romney isn't the only one who believes in outspending the competition. Look back four short years:

Q: Who spent more money on advertising, McCain or Obama?

A: Overall, Obama has outspent McCain by nearly 3-to-1, but in the closing week it’s been closer to 5-to-1.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/advertising-money-mccain-vs-obama/

The difference is, Obama got to where he was without that sort of strength against Hillary. Romney not so.

I'm quite serious, other than some unknown game changer, it's the one thing he probably needs to do. Spend. spend. spend.

I don't care about polls or money at this point--both are somewhat important but I think it all goes back to MESSAGE.

If Romney does not define his narrative soon and follow it until the election, he will lose. The race is amazingly close for having a ship that is drifting all over the place on message. President Obama's message has been more defined--Bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive, etc. and on target. Romney is to this point failing to capitalize on the President's poor performance with a well-defined plan telling how he can do better. You can't just say you'll do better (which is what Obama did in 2008; I think people learned from that); I think you have to say how you will do better...

Quote: rxwine

The difference is, Obama got to where he was without that sort of strength against Hillary. Romney not so.

I'm quite serious, other than some unknown game changer, it's the one thing he probably needs to do. Spend. spend. spend.

It appears as though Obama did have a bit of an advantage over Hillary in spending for at least some time:

On February 22, 2008, the New York Times reported for the period through January 31, 2008, with Hillary Clinton's campaign spending $106 million, Barack Obama's campaign spending $115 million and John McCain's committee $41 million.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_for_the_2008_United_States_presidential_election

forgive the crappy reference...but Obama was at the spending game even back then...and doubled down (well, more than that...) in the general election.

The spending between now and the election will be important to the outcome. If the candidate's message resonates, the ads will be even more effective.

What I'm saying is, Obama built his bucks over time against Hillary and others. It might be hard to remember when he was the unknown underdog to Hillary's coronation.

If it is any consolation, to my repub friends, South Dakota and Idaho, two red states began early voting today so Mr Romney is probably winning at this very moment. Ohio, Iowa and North Carolin begin in the next few days. Many states have already mailed out absentee ballots, which can be returned at any time.

Quote: rxwine

What I'm saying is, Obama built his bucks over time against Hillary and others. It might be hard to remember when he was the unknown underdog to Hillary's coronation.

I remember it well and am almost nostalgic for the days when Hillary was in the lead. I'm pretty strongly in the corner of President Obama being a very bad President; I'm thinking Hillary could have done better. Who knows?

Yes, President Obama did come from way back in the pack and I am sure Hillary was ahead in fundraising at points early in the race. He found his base and did well at getting money to move ahead and never looked back...

Quote: kewlj

Again, Bob, I have to say I don't think you are looking at this objectively. You are seeing what you want to happen, rather than what IS happening.

You mean like today, with O and R tied in Gallup,
and R being ahead in Rasmussen? Thats what
IS happening, you know.

Here's a rather interesting poll by the Washington Post today. The question are you better off today than 4 years ago. The results 31% said yes. That's astonishing in itself. 34% said no. 34% said about the same. Of the 31% that said yes, they are voting for Obama by about a 2-1 ratio as you might expect. The 34% who said no are going strongly for Romney, again as you would expect. What I find interesting is that the no only beats the yes by 3%. I am sure when the republicans made this question a focal point of their convention, asking it again and again, they assumed that margin to be much much greater.

Quote: kewlj

Here's a rather interesting poll by the Washington Post today

Here's a really interesting poll I've been conducting
for a couple weeks. I can't find one person who
will admit to my face that they voted for Obama.

Latest example was this afternoon. Guy next to me
was getting into a newer SUV that had an Obama/Biden
bumper sticker. I said to the guy 'Obama suporter, huh?'
Without making eye contact, the guy said the thing was
on there when he bought the SUV. I said 'thats odd,
it looks brand new, not like its been there since 2008."
He shrugs his shoulders and gets in and leaves.

Of course it was his! He's terrified to admit it because there
are so many furious people out there and he's learned
to deny it.

I ran into the exact same thing when Clinton was being
impeached. I first heard it from my barber, who has a
men only shop and has been there for 40 years. When
Clinton was going thru his woe's, he couldn't find a
single customer who voted for him. Yet in 96, there lots
of Clinton supporters among his customers.

I'll keep trying, but I bet nobody in MI voted for Obama,
even tho he carried the state handily.

Bob, your poll has proven something!!!

When people are approached by strangers, they get nervous and say whatever they hope will make the stranger happy so they stop talking!

Congratulations on this accomplishment!

Quote: EvenBob

He shrugs his shoulders and gets in and leaves.
.

Yeah, I find most of the people who bring up politics on the street to strangers are about to start some crazy ranting. Good reason to say whatever, and leave.

Quote: FinsRule

When people are approached by strangers, they get nervous and say whatever they hope will make the stranger happy

So my barber trying to find a Clinton voter
and finding none, is explained how in your
theory? No, the truth is, when people are
embarrassed about who they voted for,
they just find it easier to deny it whenever
possible. Nobody cares for looking like an
idiot when they can wiggle out of it.

I voted for Obama, and if you want to come to Chicago and ask me, I can say it to your face. Actually, there are a bunch of people in Chicago that will tell you they did.

I can give you some neighborhoods in the South Side of Chicago that you can go talk to strangers about how much you hate Obama if you'd like...

This should be funzy if anyone notices. Mitt released his taxes for 2011. He had previously stated that anyone who pays anymore tax than he owes isn't fit to be President. The statement released with his taxes tiday states that he intentionally overpaid his 2011 taxes because he wanted to remain above the 13% level.

All this so that people would stop talking about the 47% of America that he doesn't care for. I guess next week, he'll want to talk about poor Seamus again.

Quote: FinsRule

I voted for Obama, and if you want to come to Chicago and ask me.

LOL, thats my point. The ones who did will tell you all
day long on the net, but not in person. In person they
know people are upset, they know the hate factor for
Obama is extreme, so they run the other way.

Quote: s2dbaker

He had previously stated that anyone who pays anymore tax than he owes isn't fit to be President. The statement released with his taxes tiday states that he intentionally overpaid his 2011 taxes because he wanted to remain above the 13% level.

I keep wondering who among the 1% actually pays the full progressive rate?