Skip to comments.WaPo/ABC poll shows Romney favorability plateaued, Obama dropping among registered voters
Posted on 08/08/2012 7:27:34 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
click here to read article
In later years we found his interest in social conservatism was pretty much like what we see with Obama ~
But Law and Order is still a Conservative game plan that sells ~ particularly when the Democrats are rioting.
BTW, they aren't rioting this year!
Let’s see sentence by sentence:
no idea what that is supposed to mean;
Or, maybe you want to run the idiot ~ where's the backup if the idiot does something idiotic ~ did you know there are, at present, four people running around loose who have attempted to assassinate Presidents? One succeeded in shooting a candidate (Wallace) as well. One succeeded in shooting a President (Reagan)
Ask yourself "who let these guys out'?
Goldwater not only was Mr. Conservative then but still considered as such.
Not much of conservative thoughts gets through the Enema-media’s propaganda screen. Maybe one in a hundred even knows what they are.
LBJ was not an “idiot” by any measure. He was a practiced and skilled politician as his Senate career easily demonstrated. The fact that he ran into a problem not susceptible to his skills didn’t make him an idiot either.
Nor is Romney an “idiot” by any stretch. Unless “idiot” is now defined as “someone you don’t like.”
Nor will I deny that there are loose cannons (or worse) about capable of derailing any political campaign. But the effective ones have rarely been delved into deeply after they have been painted as “lone assassins”.
You gotta' keep up on this stuff.
Barry's biggest contribution to political life came in the form of political theory ~ not ideology.
It was his contention that the "Normal curve" didn't reflect American political thought with the left on the left and the right on the right with a big bunch of moderates in the middle.
Instead, he came up with the bi-modal design ~ which had a major mode we can call Republican and another we can call Democrat, but only two of these things, and neither one actually overlapping on the basis of ideology.
He applied a strictly economic caste to it's existence. However, he got it right that the way to win was to first protect your base then peel off a faction from the other mode. Going to the middle turns out, under Goldwater's analysis, to be very, very stupid because NOBODY IS THERE!
Later analysts have taken Goldwater's observation and turned it into quite an accurate predictive model. LBJ took it and turned it into political victory in 1964. He first pushed through the civil rights acts ~ with the help of the Republicans, then he promised blacks he'd do that again the next year if they voted for him.
The Republican wing of the African-American community moved to LBJ and never looked back. He got 97% of their votes ~ not just the 70% JFK had gotten.
Russian analysts looking around for ways to stabilize political life in post USSR Russia looked over the same issue and noticed that SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS lent themselves easily to explaining why the USA and UK tended to have two parties (Or two modes). The deal is ya' gots' ta' win, and it's best to get 50% + 1 vote! So, parties form to get a winning candidate over the line. And, in almost Hegelian fashion, an opposition rises up to beat them and get their guy in office instead. (That's the old thesis/anti-thesis stuff that used to be so popular with the commies ~ in this case political parties do appear to be derived from a similar phenomenon, although some have argued that football is a much better model).
I got there a good decade earlier and have been writing about the process since the mid-1970s. Since LBJ won with Goldwater's idea, and then Nixon did the same, and then Reagan did it too, no one has "gone to the middle" for anything! Well, at least no one who intends to win has done that ~ and sure as shootin' Romney's MIttbots talk about their boy going to the middle.
Sorry guys, still nobody in the middle!
Interesting, it is obvious that Mitt’s selection of Ryan means he is NOT going to the middle.
Right and Left, Liberal and Conservative are labels which no long have any real meaning since the meanings of the terms have either switched or become obsolete.
The key concepts now involve degrees of purity around some idea. For the RATS it is the idea of a government with sufficient power to take what it wants from the rich and give it to their clients.
For the far Right it is the idea of ANTI-government which contains the seeds of its defeat. Since there is no patronage to come from anti-government it is very difficult to organize any kind of professional political establishment to fight (or even understand) the HIGHLY professional party of Government.
We had anti-government of the Left which defeated HHH and anti-government of the Right which motivates today’s conservatives. The former was to a specific government/policy the latter is as a philosophic conclusion.
It is hard to see the latter winning any permanent victory given the utter corruption, ignorance of the American voter.
The problem with the whole analogy to the Republican series of candidates from 1932 to 1952 is that Obama, the Democrat this time, didn't come up with anything worth listening to ~ hardly anything to grab your attention, or even to care about, AND, compounding the Democrat disaster Obama began picking up on leads dropped by Romney!
He demonstrated that tendency last week in his interview with Jon Stewart ~ John said "Not optimal" and Obama followed with another "Not optimal".
He's probably been spending too much time memorizing set pieces for use in the debates ~ but there you have it ~ Obama the parroting idiot.
I"m sure we could dig through last evening's debate and find Romney doing one of his passes to the left, sounding lie he's toadying up to 'bama, and then we find 'bama toadying up to Romney.
Gad was that a bad debate ~ for both of them.
I thin the polls ~ showing a dead heat race ~ prove my 'Race to the bottom' thesis though ~ and that's just terrible!
You are not analyzing these polls if you believe they are showing a dead heat. When you do there is NO good news for The Disaster and any hint of that is disappearing fast.
Romney is not MY “boy” but he is the only alternative to The Disaster so will get my vote.
My idea is to surround him with a solidly conservative Congress and that will keep him in good standing.
I look at what these guys say their error range is, and they’re all down there at the same place ~ I believe I used the term ‘statistical dead heat’ ~ which means that based on that poll or those polls nobody really knows!
You have to look at trends as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.