Posted on 09/08/2012 1:03:40 PM PDT by nhwingut
For a long time I have been predicting that Mitt Romney would get the Republican nomination, and that he would then win the general election. I have said that the election will be reasonably close–demographic realities dictate that all national elections will be reasonably close, for the foreseeable future–but not a squeaker; more like 2004 than 2000. Given President Obama’s dismal record, that seemed like a safe prediction.
But it now appears that the election will be very close after all, and that Obama might even win it. It will require a few more days to assess the effects (if any) of the parties’ two conventions, but for now it looks as though the Democrats emerged with at least a draw, despite a convention that was in some ways a fiasco. In today’s Rasmussen survey, Obama has regained a two point lead over Romney, 46%-44%. Scott Rasmussen writes:
The president is enjoying a convention bounce that has been evident in the last two nights of tracking data. He led by two just before the Republican convention, so he has already erased the modest bounce Romney received from his party’s celebration in Tampa. Perhaps more significantly, Democratic interest in the campaign has soared. For the first time, those in the president’s party are following the campaign as closely as GOP voters.
So the Democrats’ red meat, over-the-top attacks on Republicans apparently worked at least as well as the Republicans’ more positive, low-key approach.
On paper, given Obama’s record, this election should be a cakewalk for the Republicans. Why isn’t it? I am afraid the answer may be that the country is closer to the point of no return than most of us believed.
(Excerpt) Read more at powerlineblog.com ...
I’ve given $200K. Would you give $200K for the good of the country. Any answer but no is subject to severe skepticism.. Of course the money is paid out of current FICA taxes and you’ll note I used the word agreement. There was no contract or enforceable promise. Truth be known any Congress and POTUS can end SS payments witha vote and a signature because it’s a law and any law can be repealed. SSS is no more an entitlement than the GI Bill which was paid for by service.
“I’ve given $200K. Would you give $200K for the good of the country. Any answer but no is subject to severe skepticism”
I’m just saying that’s why you’re lumped in with other entitlements. You think you are entitled, it’s classified budgetarily as an entitlement, and you’ll be pissed off if you don’t get it.
Thanks for the explanation. I would favor a showdown if it was possible to do. One correction though, the interview was from early 2011 so Bachmann’s position has nothing to do with the Huma flap or the current election. And the stubborn fact remains that if even the leader of the Tea Party Congress is saying she can’t or won’t defund Obamacare, then it’s not going to happen no matter how much we want it to.
It all depends how much you paid in and how much you’re taking out. If you collect more in Social Security than you paid in, then you’re benefiting from wealth redistribution. If you paid in more than you take out, then you’re being taxed to pay for other people’s benefit.
I agree with your opinion of the polls. I remember before the primaries the polls showed how Romney would beat Obama by at least 5% to 8%. They said the polls showed he was the only candidate that could win. People voted for him based on that.
And we are not.
Thus: WE lose when unemployment increases.
OK! You get the coveted
Obama is ignoring the Constitution and the Senate now. If he is re-elected, it is all over. He will not only ignore the law, he will use his secret police to finish off the country.
Almost everyone on this thread was talking about the everything but the reality of where things are. Talking about making changes, which in the reality, that are going to take decades. Those that believe in the Constitution should be first making sure the lack of triage (securing TX) doesn't end up killing the patient before grandiose plans of taking control can be realized.
Then there is the 'genius' of Rove who believes that they should only throw money into states that they have a chance of winning. By totally abandoning CA, NY, MA and IL, those states will have high %s for the Democrat party. This distorts the national tally of votes vs electoral votes. We will have more results like the AlWhore/Bush where the loser of the popular vote has the necessary electoral votes. Rove is just so smarter than us.
(4) The Republican party presented a RINO instead of a conservative candidate - again!
I’m still voting for Romney, but there’s a lot of people that are fed up with the McCain/Dole/Romney/Bush wing of the party. We don’t want to compromise with the enemy, we want to defeat them.
Simple reason. There are more takers than givers in America. If they all go the polls we lose. And that is not dependent on the conservatism of our candidate.
I admit I'm in that camp. I'm PO'd that the Republicans didn't run their convention last, instead of first. The GOP ran a wonderful, uplifting, classy convention, but far fewer people saw it because they ran it just before Labor Day, families were busy getting kids back to school, etc. The Hurricane Isaac news competing with the convention didn't help either, but that was out of everybody's control.
The 'RAT freak show convention had far more viewers, and now they're getting this big bump. R/R apparently got nothing.
My husband keeps complaining that Romney needs to get out there and say specifically how (for example) he will save every middle-class family $2,000.00 per year in lower taxes, etc. Voters need more specifics on why they should vote R/R. Time is running out... I'm getting worried.
Great point.
The thought of Obama winning another term - and thus absolutely destroying this country beyond recognition - is SO depressing to me...
The president in power gets to run his convention last.....the GOP had no choice in the issue.
With a couple of rare exceptions, that's exactly what we've been seeing here in Connecticut, and throughout the New England states. They look at me like I have three heads when I even dare to criticize The One.
Bingo! Romeny AND every single Republican have a gold mine of facts on this regime and their sorry azz record to run against. They could be pounding the cooked jobs numbers, executive orders, everything mentioned at the DNC convention and SO MUCH more. But, they won't (with the exception of Allen West) and there you have it.
Wow... I didn't know that (you would think I would after all these years on FR, lol).
Thank you for that info, LongWayHome! I suppose it makes perfect sense...
Yup....that’s a perk the party in power gets.
The incumbent party always gets the last convention. I agree, though, that they should have pushed it a week later after labor day.
I am with you that they need to get much more bold, and more specific on their solutions. I think I know why....they didn’t want to lay it all put, and then give the democrats a week long convention to attack it. Right now, though, they look like they are on the defensive. I still assume they have a plan now that they are official nominees and have the cash. If a couple more week’s go by and we feel this way, I will be worried. I don’t care abut a bump. Everyone gets one. I do care that we seem to be playing with gloves on at this point. We will see.
Yep. It's the knee jerk reaction that is prevalent on FR.
“I admit I'm in that camp.”
Get out of that camp.
Look at the FACTS:
1. DNC. The RATS just completed their convention, of course Soetoro was going to get a bounce, the majority of which was from Clinton (not Obama). Clinton ain't running for POTUS.
2. Scott Rasmussen ISN'T a prophet. Again, another FReeperism is taking the word of Rasmussen as Gospel; it isn't. He's ONE polling outfit, ONE point of data. And as far as Rasmussen goes, he just had a poll that showed more Americans are registered GOP than in any poll his outfit has taken. So, all the Republicans are going to vote for Obama? Don't think so.
3. History. GHWB was behind Do-cucky by 17% in 1988. Ronald Reagan's sitting VP was behind by a HUGE margin. How did that election come out again? Right...a Bush blowout.
I have the cache and history on my computer set to clean out cookies automatically and I can't find the FR thread, but there was a thread regarding poll results and a FReeper had a brilliant observation/opinion. To paraphrase: The pollsters don't want to show Obama losing this far out because the inner city "gimme" crowd is going to start freaking out en masse. Expect to see the unevenly balanced polling internals (the massive oversampling of RATS) until just before the election, so these pollsters can salvage something of their reputations.
The DNC just finished up, R2 has just begun spending their mounds of dollar$ in states like WI. The fight has just really started - it's after Labor Day and both major parties completed their conventions.
I'm not saying not to be concerned, the fact that a POTUS like this bum is over 30% in any poll shows how far this country has slid, but unless an evil miracle happens, Obama is going down hard.
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.