Posted on 08/13/2012 8:13:21 PM PDT by goodn'mad
Fox News. Between Joe Trippi and Carl Rove. Rove states that Obama holds 271 electoral votes but Romney holds only 182 electoral votes. "If the election were held today, Obama would win."
All true, let's not forget that if an 0boober victory were such a lock, why isn't the left running around bragging about all his accomplishments? 0bamacare, the "signature legislation" barely gets a mention. Instead the only strategy they have is to run a negative scorched earth campaign, planting stories about Romney and now Ryan in their media in hopes of limping to a 51% victory.
BTW if this president does eek out a victory of 1 or 2 percent we can thank the many "conservatives" (some here on FR) who decide to sit out the election because Romney isn't the perfect candidate. Because this is the only scenario (along with outright fraud) that this president gets back in. IMHO there's no worse situation for the country than a reelected 0bama who "has a free hand because he won't need to face another election."
Thank you for the info; California will not give all its votes to the national vote winner until 270 electoral votes’ worth of states pass similar laws.
I am glad, I don’t like this idea at all, even though it may work to Romney’s advantage this year.
Excellent points. Let's not forget all those college kids who were fainting at the '08 rallies have since graduated into the worst job market in 70 years. No matter what jimmied numbers the MSM uses to say we're in a "recovery" the average person doesn't see it. Those of us who want this sorry excuse for a president gone are ready to go through a typhoon to get to the polling place and vote him out. I don't see the same enthusiasm on the other side. Case in point, the OWS bums: Have they been active since the unions and $oros hasn't been supporting them? Oh I won't be surprised to see them back in October just before election day, but compare them to the Tea Party. We have a Tea Party supporter in the #2 spot on the ticket. He's proud to acknowledge that fact, as are the people in lesser offices who campaign saying they're supported by the Tea Party. When was the last time any leftist (even 0bama) bragged that they were supported by OWS? If anything they go to great lengths to hide the affiliation. IMHO that alone tells you something.
Anyone thinks South Carolina is toss up or Tejas is only likely GOP is smoking fine kush
[ You guys really do need to go to DU. Suits defeatists soooo much better. ]
So a realist is considered a defeatist by you.?..
You have one vote but can influence others.. as others do..
You may not be as practical as you think you are..
The Glad Game can be fun but not realistic... usually.. i.e. PollyAnna..
Those at DU are statists here it is not so..
Except among some of the RINOs.. here..
I don’t believe Rove is on the “team” this time around.
Neither are Steve Schmidt and Nicole Wallace.
Realist (def) : someone who understands that a vote for anyone but Romney in Nov=a vote for Obama. You can pretend it’s otherwise, but you’re the one on the happy-glad juice if you do. Except really it’s a “holier than thou” juice which allow people to say “I opposed Obama” without ever having to make the genuine, real choices of a two party system, which is what we have.
Tearing Myth apart does not convert to "I will not vote for him"... Being a Pavlov's Dog effected by "the Whistle".. makes you a fanatic.. and probably somebody's BITCH!...
Myth is a Union stooge and a stone liberal.. and probably a whore like Newt meaning he can be pressured to lean right.. with enough pressure of the right kind..
IF NOT he will bend over and assume "the Position"..
You know... like he did in Massachusetts..
Myth is really comfortable with democrats.. a real bi-partisan guy..
Myth will not even mention the Vampires in passing.. i.e. the UNIONS..
Not a word, a reference, will not even imply anything about Unions..
He is afraid of them -OR- complicit with them.. (or BOTH)..
And calling names is a sure sign your arguments have utterly failed.
[ And calling names is a sure sign your arguments have utterly failed. ]
That can be true... but it is usually mostly UNTRUE...
Often it is a lie... or a strawman or a diversion..
You know... a debate trick.. by a trickster..
Calling someone a liar or a RINO(for example) can indeed be true..
Hosepipe dodges again, and calls more names.
I assume you are joking because everyone knows Dick Morris is always wrong about everything...
[ Hosepipe dodges again, and calls more names. ]
You are yourself quite “dodgey”... (up eyebrow, wry smile)...
GOPe rhymes with Dope.
5.56mm
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.