USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
2012 Presidential Election Part 4
- Thread starter ericredaxe
- Start date
- Status
FadeToBlack&Gold
8647
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
I just noticed Obama has reversed his position on the cheap flag pin wearing.
I just noticed Obama has reversed his position on the cheap flag pin wearing.
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
Good catch. But Romney's is bigger (his flag pin, you disgusting pigs).
I just noticed Obama has reversed his position on the cheap flag pin wearing.
Good catch. But Romney's is bigger (his flag pin, you disgusting pigs).
ericredaxe
Veteran
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
Do the democrats always wear blue ties and the republicans always red?
Do the democrats always wear blue ties and the republicans always red?
FadeToBlack&Gold
8647
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
I seem to recall Bush 2 and Kerry wearing the "wrong" ties in at least one debate.
I seem to recall Bush 2 and Kerry wearing the "wrong" ties in at least one debate.
unofan
Well-known member
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
When did the colors switch, because the GOP used to be blue and the DNC red? It seems like it was fairly recent, I'm thinking 2000.
When did the colors switch, because the GOP used to be blue and the DNC red? It seems like it was fairly recent, I'm thinking 2000.
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
I would have sworn it was during network coverage of the Reagan blowout in '84. There was a lot of talk about a "sea of red," IIRC.
I would have sworn it was during network coverage of the Reagan blowout in '84. There was a lot of talk about a "sea of red," IIRC.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
They reversed them for the debate with the cow.
They reversed them for the debate with the cow.
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
Watched the whole thing in fast forward (didn't figure anything new was going to come out). What was interesting was seeing the body language in the split-screen. Romney seemed like a dad listening to someone else's opinion. Obama had a forward lean that seemed to say "I'm going to take you out". I don't think it will translate into anything bigger, but it was interesting to see.
*edit - apparently Brit Hume agrees with me
Watched the whole thing in fast forward (didn't figure anything new was going to come out). What was interesting was seeing the body language in the split-screen. Romney seemed like a dad listening to someone else's opinion. Obama had a forward lean that seemed to say "I'm going to take you out". I don't think it will translate into anything bigger, but it was interesting to see.
*edit - apparently Brit Hume agrees with me
Last edited:
Slap Shot
I got nothing
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
Of course no one is going to change their mind yet they still read newspapers, still watch debates and still engage in public forums. Right?
Of course no one is going to change their mind yet they still read newspapers, still watch debates and still engage in public forums. Right?
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
So, how do you know who got their @ ss kicked? The guy who's people say 1) that was part of the plan to be low key, and 2) oh, this debate won't matter.
I don't know how much Romney was sweating up there, but by the end of the night he must have smelled nice and ripe. Line of the night was the response as to why we don't have as many ships as during WWI. Hilarious but important as he crushed a usual GOP talking point (try to find some example of military decline) and knocked it right out of the park.
What's the impact of this debate? Simply put, its not good for Romney. How not good only time will tell. However, if you watch any right leaning pundit, or for that matter any knuckledragger out here, they'll all try to sell you the notion of Mittens Momentum, while declining to note where exactly this momentum is. There's a reason for that, which is that his polling has stalled, and we're only now getting #'s taken after the 2nd debate let alone this one. The idea being the Dem supporters stay home. I'm not sure I ever remember a race where a guy losing amongst registered voters ended up winning the election. While part of that may be because we have had relatively few close elections in recent years (2000 being the exception) I'd also think its because more and more voters out of the registered group become "likely" to vote as election day nears. That's not good for Mittens either.
So, how do you know who got their @ ss kicked? The guy who's people say 1) that was part of the plan to be low key, and 2) oh, this debate won't matter.
I don't know how much Romney was sweating up there, but by the end of the night he must have smelled nice and ripe. Line of the night was the response as to why we don't have as many ships as during WWI. Hilarious but important as he crushed a usual GOP talking point (try to find some example of military decline) and knocked it right out of the park.
What's the impact of this debate? Simply put, its not good for Romney. How not good only time will tell. However, if you watch any right leaning pundit, or for that matter any knuckledragger out here, they'll all try to sell you the notion of Mittens Momentum, while declining to note where exactly this momentum is. There's a reason for that, which is that his polling has stalled, and we're only now getting #'s taken after the 2nd debate let alone this one. The idea being the Dem supporters stay home. I'm not sure I ever remember a race where a guy losing amongst registered voters ended up winning the election. While part of that may be because we have had relatively few close elections in recent years (2000 being the exception) I'd also think its because more and more voters out of the registered group become "likely" to vote as election day nears. That's not good for Mittens either.
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
Why don't we just call it off and coronate that cheap, jumped up Chicago pol and save ourselves the expense? What's really fascinating is the libstains who now proudly proclaim what a great foreign policy genius His Islamistness is. Four years ago, after years of voting "present" in the Illinois General Assembly and dispatching the formidable Alan Keyes, his total absense of foreign policy experience wasn't important. Now, Romney's absence of foreign policy experience is why we should dispense with the balloting and just crown His Loserness.
And you are precisely the type of libstain, low information, anti-military dolt at whom the crack about ships and horses and bayonets was directed. It may work in the ladies chorale powder room, but I doubt it'll have much saliency among voters. Most of them are smart enough to know the missions, tactics, potential enemies and weapons have changed since 1918. And that merely counting the number of ships is a fool's errand, for which you are uniquely qualified.
Why don't we just call it off and coronate that cheap, jumped up Chicago pol and save ourselves the expense? What's really fascinating is the libstains who now proudly proclaim what a great foreign policy genius His Islamistness is. Four years ago, after years of voting "present" in the Illinois General Assembly and dispatching the formidable Alan Keyes, his total absense of foreign policy experience wasn't important. Now, Romney's absence of foreign policy experience is why we should dispense with the balloting and just crown His Loserness.
And you are precisely the type of libstain, low information, anti-military dolt at whom the crack about ships and horses and bayonets was directed. It may work in the ladies chorale powder room, but I doubt it'll have much saliency among voters. Most of them are smart enough to know the missions, tactics, potential enemies and weapons have changed since 1918. And that merely counting the number of ships is a fool's errand, for which you are uniquely qualified.
Last edited:
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
Some do. Although the number reading newspapers is down rather dramatically.
Some do. Although the number reading newspapers is down rather dramatically.
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
according to wikipedia (article "Red states and blue states"):
The terms red states and blue states came into use in the United States presidential election of 2000 on an episode of the Today show on October 30, 2000 to refer to those states of the United States whose residents predominantly vote for the Republican Party or Democratic Party presidential candidates, respectively. According to AlterNet and The Washington Post, the terms were coined by journalist Tim Russert, during his televised coverage of the 2000 presidential election.[1] That was not the first election during which the news media used colored maps to graphically depict voter preferences in the various states, but it was the first time a standard color scheme took hold; the colors were often reversed or different colors used before the 2000 election.
Before the 2000 presidential election, the traditional color coding scheme was "Blue for Republican, Red for Democrat,"[2] in line with historical European associations (red was used for left-leaning parties).[3] Traditional political mapmakers, at least throughout the 20th century, have used blue to represent the modern-day Republicans, and the Federalists who preceded them. Perhaps this was a holdover from the days of the Civil War when the predominantly Republican North was “Blue”.[4] Even earlier, in the 1888 presidential election, Grover Cleveland and Benjamin Harrison used maps that coded blue for the Republicans, the color Cleveland perceived to represent the Union and "Lincoln's Party", and red for the Democrats.[5] The parties themselves had no official colors, with candidates variously using either or both of the national color palette of red and blue (white being unsuitable for printed materials). Time magazine assigned red to the Democrats and blue to the Republicans in its election graphics in every election from 1988 to 2000. The Washington Post's election graphics for the 2000 election were Republican-blue, Democrat-red.[3]
according to wikipedia (article "Red states and blue states"):
The terms red states and blue states came into use in the United States presidential election of 2000 on an episode of the Today show on October 30, 2000 to refer to those states of the United States whose residents predominantly vote for the Republican Party or Democratic Party presidential candidates, respectively. According to AlterNet and The Washington Post, the terms were coined by journalist Tim Russert, during his televised coverage of the 2000 presidential election.[1] That was not the first election during which the news media used colored maps to graphically depict voter preferences in the various states, but it was the first time a standard color scheme took hold; the colors were often reversed or different colors used before the 2000 election.
Before the 2000 presidential election, the traditional color coding scheme was "Blue for Republican, Red for Democrat,"[2] in line with historical European associations (red was used for left-leaning parties).[3] Traditional political mapmakers, at least throughout the 20th century, have used blue to represent the modern-day Republicans, and the Federalists who preceded them. Perhaps this was a holdover from the days of the Civil War when the predominantly Republican North was “Blue”.[4] Even earlier, in the 1888 presidential election, Grover Cleveland and Benjamin Harrison used maps that coded blue for the Republicans, the color Cleveland perceived to represent the Union and "Lincoln's Party", and red for the Democrats.[5] The parties themselves had no official colors, with candidates variously using either or both of the national color palette of red and blue (white being unsuitable for printed materials). Time magazine assigned red to the Democrats and blue to the Republicans in its election graphics in every election from 1988 to 2000. The Washington Post's election graphics for the 2000 election were Republican-blue, Democrat-red.[3]
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
not all networks used the same color scheme in 84.
also from wikipedia (with citation):
NBC newsman David Brinkley famously referred to the 1980 election map outcome as showing Ronald Reagan's 44-state landslide as resembling a "suburban swimming pool"
Zeller, Tom (2004-02-08). "Ideas & Trends; One State, Two State, Red State, Blue State". The New York Times.
not all networks used the same color scheme in 84.
also from wikipedia (with citation):
NBC newsman David Brinkley famously referred to the 1980 election map outcome as showing Ronald Reagan's 44-state landslide as resembling a "suburban swimming pool"
Zeller, Tom (2004-02-08). "Ideas & Trends; One State, Two State, Red State, Blue State". The New York Times.
- Status