Posted on 08/06/2012 4:27:26 PM PDT by neverdem
Favor is fickle, and hope and change was easier to promise than deliver on.
A new Gallup poll shows that nearly 10 percent of voters who supported Barack Obama during his 2008 run have decamped and will be supporting Republican challenger Mitt Romney in this next election. At nine percent, the rate of Obama ’08 defectors is nearly double the five percent of former McCain ’08 supporters who now say they’ll cast a vote for Obama.
Partly loyalty is higher in the Republican camp too, with 92 percent of former McCain supporters saying they’re sticking with the red ticket, while only 86 percent of Obama’s 2008 base say they’re staying true.
The poll surveyed more than 2,000 registered voters who punched a ballot in 2008.
Now for some number play: if we make the broad assumption that the poll data is representative of the general population and do some extrapolation, tallying nine percent of 69,456,897 (Obama’s 2008 vote count) and subtracting five percent of John McCain’s 59,934,814 votes, we end up with a potential 3.25 million more votes for Romney than McCain had four years ago. It’s nothing concrete, but it’s becoming clear that election 2012 will be a far different race than 2008 was.
Which proves that either you have not bothered to read and consider many of our posts, OR that you are intellectually dishonest. There are many ideas here, solid, reasoned ideas, as to alternatives to rolling over and surrendering the GOP to an extreme statist liberal like Romney.
Find a post of mine where I've complained about the GOP not nominating the right guy. On the other hand, if you went back in my posting history, you'd see where I frequently posted that a) Romney would probably get the nomination in 2012 and that those who declared "he's toast" in '10 and '11 were being naive; b) as early as 2008 (I was inclined to favor him int 2007, until I did my due diligence and researched his record), that he was the single most dangerous threat to the GOP and to conservatism and should be (have been) nipped in the bud as a top priority. And I wasn't alone in that sentiment.
But it's pretty obvious that you skim, you don't read; and that you are a lot more "broadcast" than "receive."
In that case, ABOers are really delusional if they think that same Congress is going to "hold Romney's feet to the fire," particularly if Romney gets a landslide win and thus a "popular mandate."
You are even more delusional if you turn away from the fact that Romney, moderates, and the MSM would certainly pervert that landslide, a referendum on Obama, into a "the public loves Romney!" popular mandate for Romney's progressive statist brand of "Republican."
I repeat: the ONLY smart way to vote is to vote for a plurality in order to weaken the mandate of whichever liberal statist wins. And the only way to vote for a plurality is to vote third-party.
You're not persuasive and you're not even paying attention. Obama is circumventing Congress and the longer he stays in office the longer our economic disaster continues. Plus, if he survives this election, there will be nothing to stop him from an all-out assault on the Constitution and the free market economy.
Would Romney, in his wildest dreams, do that to America? I don't believe it.
If anyone is weak, it's Romney. He's not a forceful leader. A Republican Congress will have more sway with him because he doesn't think about ways to get around Congress. He's a go-along-get-along milquetoast moderate. He was a liberal Zelig in Democrat-controlled Massachussetts and he's campaigning now as somebody far more conservative than that.
We don't really know the real Romney but whoever he is cannot possibly do more damage to America than a second term of Obama where he is beholden to nobody and has no need to reign himself in just to get re-elected.
NO SANE AMERICAN WANTS TO GO ANYWHERE NEAR A SECOND OBAMA TERM and that's why the sane conservatives are going to bite their tongues, hold their noses and vote for Romney despite all they mistrust about him.
That you refuse tells me all I need to know about you.
Tell that to Bill Clinton. You are a fatalist, no more a "realist" than an optimist who sees the world through rose-colored glasses. The only difference is that your glasses are dung-tinted.
Bill Clinton was elected the first time on a plurality of 43%, and two years later, was hammered with the Republican Revolution. He and the MSM could have claimed his win as a "mandate" (though they never did, as they wouldn't if Obama won on a 43% plurality) but he no more had a mandate than Chaz Bono has balls. Illusions are still illusions no matter who declares otherwise. Clinton was elected the second time on a plurality of 49% -- and was impeached two years later.
Had HW Bush won re-election, or had Clinton won a majority either time, the Republican Revolution and Clinton's impeachment would probably never have happened. Those two pluralities clearly favored conservatives.
And Clinton was liked and popular overall, even though most Americans voted for somebody else both times. Obama, on the other hand, if you take off your crap-tinted lenses and look at things as a realist, is becoming more and more loathed by the very people who once supported him. Obama is held in contempt by quite possibly a very large majority of Americans; he lacks any of Clinton's charm.
There is good, solid reason to vote for a plurality in 2012. Because if Romney wins in a landslide, he will marginalize conservative Republicans and have the numbers to prove his claim of a "popular mandate" to justify his telling conservatives to sit down and shut up. Romney is a documented, demonstrated extreme liberal statist. Wishing he will change once in office, especially if he won on a landslide, is height of delusion.
So what on earth makes you think they would stand up to Romney, especially if Romney wins on a popular mandate "landslide"?
If Romney wants a second term he will have to deal with the conservative base.
You mean the same conservative base that so soundly rejected him this time?
You are wholly delusional.
Word. And the media will tell the sheeple they have that mandate and the RINOs will tell the sheeple that the president deserves his chance to implement the policies the public elected him to do. It will be 2009 all over again.
... chuckle chuckle ... "Well, the only connection is I'm registered as a Republican," yuk yuk yuk, haw haw haw ...
... every desperate short-sighted ABOer, seeing how many Democrats are so easily moving away from Obama toward Romney, risks giving this extreme statist liberal assclown, a landslide.
If, God forbid, Romney wins in a landslide, the buyers' remorse among Republicans will be immediate, excruciatingly painful, and crippling.
Pray for a plurality, folks. Vote for one, too.
I sure hope you're right, Mu. But personally, I think there is genuine danger that he might get one.
Obama is not the enemy. Liberalism is the enemy, cowards in Congress are the enemy.
You're aiming at the wrong target, and are advocating surrendering the Republican party to statist liberalism, and refuse to consider any other options because you are paralyzed by your fear of Obama.
It's pure, simple truth. I don't like it any more than you do, but truth is truth.
It takes some serious finagling to get around the problem ~ from both sides.
Romney is saying things to pull in Democrat voters (who suck up to gays) in Leftwingtard states ~ but the Democrat edge there is OVERWHELMING. Obama could be near death in a hospital and they'd still vote for him because he's a Democrat. They aren't picky. But picking up moderate gay voters in New York does not help us.
On the other hand, telling folks in South Dakota about your interest in gays in the Boy Scouts could lose us our electoral vote advantage. BTW, that's what really killed us in the Ross Perot contests ~ he took away our votes in states we needed to win ~ and got no votes at all in Democrat core constituencies. That gave it all to Clinton.
You did mean Muslim terrorist playing Marxist, didn't you?
[ I know for a fact many more(blacks) are stupid ]
Some are indeed stupid but more are just ignorant..
After all civics is not taught in public school anymore..
Brilliant tactic by the teachers unions..
They don’t even know they have a Constitution let alone whats IN THE Constitution.. or the value of it..
Subtle but brilliant tactic of sedition by the Teachers Unions..
DUMB them down and they will vote for their OWN SLAVERY..
Try to tell a Black or Jew that the democrat party flat out despises them..
At least a few Hispanics KNOW what communism(socialism) is.. they lived it..
Not all but many do know..
I think we all know your true agenda...anti mormonism first, conservatism second.
I sure hope you’re right, Mu.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
maybe you two can explain yourselves here. Looks to me like the two of you would be sad if Romney won, in a landslide or not. If so I am ashamed to associate with the likes of you two.
On the other hand, it is highly doubtful this poofer can beat the other poofer.
One of you Mitbots ought to go take care of this problem, OK.
American conservatism rejects state establishments of religion.
Do you?
Does Bishop Myth?
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.