Posted on 09/10/2012 12:52:53 PM PDT by madprof98
With unemployment still over 8 percent, household income continuing to fall and trillion-dollar deficits stretching out as far as the eye can see, the 2012 presidential race shouldn’t even be close. In fact, economic-based political models suggest that Mitt Romney ought to be strolling to an easy victory.
And yet Romney is losing. When your campaign pollster is forced to release an “OK, Nobody Panic!” memo, as Neil Newhouse did today, it’s never a good sign.
The same is true of the race to control the U.S. Senate. Of the 33 seats being contested this year, only 10 are held by the Republicans. That means that going into this election cycle, the GOP had 23 chances to pick up the four additional seats they need to claim a Senate majority. Given the public’s deep disenchantment with Congress and the willingness of wealthy conservatives to pump big money into those races, the GOP had every reason to be confident that Mitch McConnell would replace Harry Reid as Senate majority leader come January.
And yet that dream may also be slipping away.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.ajc.com ...
And 4-8-12-16-20-24-30 years ago your sort of Chicken Little sour grapes whiners were squealing the same nonsense you are squealing now. So you got it wrong in 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000 and 2004 but got it right in 1992, 1996 and 2008.
I think you might not want to be so arrogantly certain of your infallibility give your pathetic batting average there slick.
Good point. I'm sure the millions whose unemployment is about to expire are none too happy with zero's handling of the economy.
See post 49, the Social Security check collecting age group, is the most republican voting age group in America.
Also of course, the military and it’s retirees, don’t let the left confuse the issues by confusing a ‘government issued check’, with welfare.
See post 49, the Social Security check collecting age group, is the most republican voting age group in America.
Also of course, the military and it’s retirees, don’t let the left confuse the issues by confusing a ‘government issued check’, with welfare.
I get your meaning, but Americans aren't being subjugated against their will... they're going quite willingly.
Then, plainly, you have nothing whatsoever to worry about... yes?
I read through the first 50 comments and did not see any mention that conservatives (Freepers included) are not susporting Mitt. I see that O has a very high percentage of “his base” committed to vote for him, but factions of Romney’s “base” are (a) not enthused, (b) will “never” vote for him or (c) will not vote at all in 2012.
Mitt leads by 15% among Independents (the hallowed target group). I assume Mitt’s campaign has not yet begun to fight, and that should make a difference.
He has the money and hopefully the smarts. Much better ready to go than McCain was. But Mitt may not pull more of his base if he keeps saying things like he will not repeal ALL of Obamamacare because he likes “some parts of it”. Why does he say such stupid things? Yes, I know he is the father of government Health Care, but is he trying to win or stay ocnsistent?
Four years ago, Team McCain’s sycophants were mumbling the same insistent, zombie drone, all the way up to Election Day. Just sayin’.
And 4-8-12-16-20-24-30 years ago your sort of Chicken Little sour grapes whiners were squealing the same nonsense you are squealing now. So you got it wrong in 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000 and 2004 but got it right in 1992, 1996 and 2008.
I think you might not want to be so arrogantly certain of your infallibility give your pathetic batting average there slick.
Doesn't anyone wonder to themselves WHY the media AND Obama's regime repeatedly suggested they were most afraid of Romney getting in the primaries last year?
Does no one consider that Obama and the Ruling Class CHOSE Romney to be his opposition? Chosen to lose? Chosen to hit the mat in the third round by the Movers and Shakers?
Or does the concept that we have already gone Soviet in our election system under Obama seem an impossibility to most?
I don’t place Romney/Ryan stickers on my car because of the distinct probability that, at best, they will be ripped off, and as just likely, my car will be vandalized. In previous elections (many years ago) I displayed stickers, but this country has changed.
“I think you might not want to be so arrogantly certain of your infallibility give your pathetic batting average there slick.”
Two words for you, sir.
Herman Cain.
Then what? You'll impose your will by force on the majority who disagree with you? Or just go out in a blaze of glory?
Then sleep well in your faith and confidence in Romney and the legitimacy of an electoral process run by Obama. You got no worries. Everyone hates Obama and will vote for a guy with a nearly identical record to replace him with by enough of a margin to overcome an historic amount of fraud greater than any in human history. Glory hallelujah!
It goes back to the 90's and the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which took the lid off the investment banks, and to the invention of credit default swaps, CDS's, which much more than the housing bubble broke the big investment banks when Lehman Bros. fell.
Big money-center banks gorged on CDS's, in the scores of trillions of dollars. Then the whole thing went under when Lehman Bros. failed and AIG, the principal insuring company of the CDS's, failed too -- when some Lehman CDS's crossed in the open market at 20 cents on the dollar, AIG was instantaneously broke, and all their client investment and money-center banks with them.
Smaller banks, invested in real estate instead, weren't so badly hurt (except the ones that had gorged on Freddie and Fannie stuff, which Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama shared blame for). But the Fed rushed to save the biggest, brokest banks .... and in so doing, have prolonged our misery.
Now we're going to have a Japanese-style workout, that Alan Gargoyle once scolded the Japanese for doing, which will last decades and depress the U.S. economy for as far as the eye can see.
Many, many authors of all this, folks. Including two Fed chairmen, three Presidents, and whole roomsful of congresscritters and bank executives.
Shhhhhh, now. Shhhhhhhhhhhhh.
The only one "screaming hysterical bile," in this instance, is you.
I, personally, resigned myself to the pitifully inevitable when the GOP-e decided to take a nice, long, steaming whizz all over the conservative voting base once again, by nominating the most unapologetically (and indefensibly) leftwards candidate running as their presidential standard bearer.
Cool as the proverbial cuke, over here.
The electoral process is not "run by Obama". It's run by 50 state governments, the majority of which are run by Republicans.
You put your finger on why Romney can't touch on some issues (corruption, veiled past, unconstitutional actions, etc, etc.) because of a well-justified concern that he would be branded racist, birther, extremist, smear artist, etc. As for surrogates doing it for him, a few are doing it effectively such as John Sununu (and probably others), but you are right, there should be many more.
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.