What's new
By:
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 II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vacante

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

Kepler said:
I can't believe Romney's campaign thought FL would be "in the bag" at any stage. It was always set up to be a battle of attrition.

I thing it's more likely that they believed (and still do) that they can use FL to leverage their money advantage. They can control the Dems' spending by pouring money in. If the Dems don't take the bait that's an enormous state to bank. If the Dems do, then the RNC and Romney can cream them in ad buys in the other battlegrounds.
Click to expand...

Kep there's no "taking the bait" consideration here. Either Romney wins Florida or he has no prayer of getting elected. He doesn't have the luxury of faking a Florida play merely to draw Obama cash there. He desperately needs to win that state above all others even Ohio.

From the article I read the thought was that they'd be up in Florida by this point. Putting it away IMO is more like what happened in 2004, where there was some talk of Kerry making a play but come November it was off the board. Mittens needs NC and FL off the board going into election day or otherwise he's bleeding in too many different places to save his campaign.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

geezer said:
wrong link, perhaps? :confused:
I'm not seeing any bounces there or on RCP.
Click to expand...

?

Works for me?


Code: 
Gallup Poll. Rolling average. N=approx. 1,500 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.
 
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?"

[B] 	 	Approve 	Disapprove 	Margin[/B]
9/4-6/12  	52 	 	43  	 	+9
9/3-5/12  	49 	 	45  	 	+4
9/2-4/12  	47 	 	47  	 	even
9/1-3/12  	45 	 	48  	 	-3
 
Last edited:
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

Rover said:
Kep there's no "taking the bait" consideration here. Either Romney wins Florida or he has no prayer of getting elected. He doesn't have the luxury of faking a Florida play merely to draw Obama cash there.
Click to expand...
I'm suggesting the opposite. Romney has money to burn, so he starts out by pushing big in FL. If the Dems match him dollar-for-dollar then he can bankrupt them. If the Dems concede FL then the race is on.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

No Wisconsin? That's bizarre. We now have neither campaign spending in a state that's polling within the margin of error. That has probably never happened before.

I wonder if they have internal polling that shows the strong presence of Mormons in NV and CO will push those states.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

Kepler said:
?

Works for me?


Code: 
Gallup Poll. Rolling average. N=approx. 1,500 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.
 
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?"

[B] 	 	Approve 	Disapprove 	Margin[/B]
9/4-6/12  	52 	 	43  	 	+9
9/3-5/12  	49 	 	45  	 	+4
9/2-4/12  	47 	 	47  	 	even
9/1-3/12  	45 	 	48  	 	-3
Click to expand...

OK, I get it. Excuse my lack of math.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

But Kepler that strategy (attrition) only works if the Dems believe that Florida will be in play because Romney is pouring cash in down there. Last I checked no one is sniffing glue on Obama's side. ;)

Of course if Romney thinks he can win this like he won the nomination (sit back and let the Derp kill itself) he will get smoked in November.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

Handyman said:
But Kepler that strategy (attrition) only works if the Dems believe that Florida will be in play because Romney is pouring cash in down there. Last I checked no one is sniffing glue on Obama's side. ;)
Click to expand...
Reason #451 why Dems are glad Hillary didn't win. The Obama campaign team is so pragmatic that it seems like... a Republican campaign team.

Actually the whole campaign is so Opposite Day 2004 it's becoming surreal. Vulnerable incumbent lucks into weakest possible challenger who then squanders his veep choice and convention and will STILL be within striking distance. Meanwhile, incumbent runs workmanlike campaign and challenger plays circular firing squad.

If you're under 30 you might even believe liberals are competent at politics. I assure you -- we are not. :D
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

Yawn.

BAIER: To hear several speakers in Charlotte … they were essentially saying that you don’t care about the U.S. military because you didn’t mention U.S. troops and the war in Afghanistan in your nomination acceptance speech. … Do you regret opening up this line of attack, now a recurring attack, by leaving out that issue in the speech.

ROMNEY: I only regret you’re repeating it day in and day out. When you give a speech you don’t go through a laundry list, you talk about the things that you think are important and I described in my speech, my commitment to a strong military unlike the president’s decision to cut our military. And I didn’t use the word troops, I used the word military. I think they refer to the same thing.
Click to expand...

Well done, Mitt.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

Handyman said:
Of course if Romney thinks he can win this like he won the nomination (sit back and let the Derp kill itself) he will get smoked in November.
Click to expand...
It shouldn't even be close but 4 dollar gas and 2 more job reports.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

I despise Hillary Clinton and yet I have to admit she's done a competent job as Secretary of State. Not "great" or "very good", but competent given the situation. I recall that a few years back, even eternally-scowling, corrupt Cheney admitted that she (paraphrased) "is the smartest person in that administration" (no, I don't have a confirmed source, despite my brief Google efforts). That said, I don't think she would be faring much better than Obama if she had been the nominee & eventually winner.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
I despise Hillary Clinton and yet I have to admit she's done a competent job as Secretary of State. Not "great" or "very good", but competent given the situation. I recall that a few years back, even eternally-scowling, corrupt Cheney admitted that she (paraphrased) "is the smartest person in that administration" (no, I don't have a confirmed source, despite my brief Google efforts). That said, I don't think she would be faring much better than Obama if she had been the nominee & eventually winner.
Click to expand...

I don't despise her. But her world class hypocrisy on her baseball affiliation sticks in my craw. For years, in many places and under many circumstances (including with Harry Carey) she repeatedly declared she was a Cubs fan. Then she decided to parachute in to New York to run for the senate and she suddenly became a Yankee fan.

Remember the scene at the end of the remake of "The Taking of Pelham 123" where Denzel asks the mayor, played by James Gandolfini, if he's a Yankee fan. Without thinking, the mayor replies "no." Then quickly amends the statement by saying "of course."

The making of a 100K profit in just a few days in the arcane world of futures trading, after she'd "read an article in the Wall Street Journal is bad enough. But claiming she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary even before he climbed Mt. Everest (shows great prescience on the part of her parents, no? ) is the capper. Under those circumstances, maybe her parents should have named her "Tenzing."
 
Last edited:
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
I despise Hillary Clinton and yet I have to admit she's done a competent job as Secretary of State. Not "great" or "very good", but competent given the situation. I recall that a few years back, even eternally-scowling, corrupt Cheney admitted that she (paraphrased) "is the smartest person in that administration" (no, I don't have a confirmed source, despite my brief Google efforts). That said, I don't think she would be faring much better than Obama if she had been the nominee & eventually winner.
Click to expand...

I have to respectfully disagree. Obama neglected the economy; his "legacy" was more important. He wasted the stimulus (there is a huge difference between concept and execution; even if you think the stimulus in theory was a good idea, the way they implemented it was atrocious); when the economy should have been the number one priority he sucked up all the nation's energy into an enervating divisive debate on healthcare that is still a huge anchor weighing down the recovery (again, whatever you think of the concept, the actual execution sucked bigtime).

Hillary seems more mature than Barack, who comes across more as an overgrown adolescent than a credible mature man (he gets so peevish; it's unbecoming). My guess is that she would have had the discipline to prioritze properly.

If you talk to business owners instead of talking to political poseurs and pollsters, you'd realize that increasing costs are a huge concern, and Obama has either implemented cost increases or has advocated stridently in favor of them. you can tell me he was well-intentioned and I won't argue; however it does seem to me that his priorities were (and still are) off-kilter. Whether he intends it or not, his agenda is anti-business (unless you run a green energy company!) and he doesn't even seem to realize it. Yet he wonders why the economy is so anemic. Hillary definitely would know better.

By the way, so does Bill. He knows that the reason he ran a budget surplus was because the Republican Congress forced him to restrain spending, and also because prior administration tax reform allowed for tremendous capital investment in the economy; the government was awash in tax dollars from the innovation and productivity unleashed by reduced taxes on capital. Yet Clinton did not complain about an obstructionist Congress; instead he accomplished several very significant milestones instead. Watching Bill Clinton, you could see Obama shrink in stature by the moment.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
I despise Hillary Clinton and yet I have to admit she's done a competent job as Secretary of State. Not "great" or "very good", but competent given the situation. I recall that a few years back, even eternally-scowling, corrupt Cheney admitted that she (paraphrased) "is the smartest person in that administration" (no, I don't have a confirmed source, despite my brief Google efforts). That said, I don't think she would be faring much better than Obama if she had been the nominee & eventually winner.
Click to expand...
She would have had Bill to give her advice, that would have at least counted for something.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top