rickyp wrote:Hence the gay marriage support.... They shall all rise up from their couches after watching Glee and hi themselves to the ballot box.

Sure

Just 22% of Tar Heel voters think the federal government has the constitutional authority to force everyone in the country to buy or obtain health insurance, a central element of the president’s national health care plan. Forty-three percent (43%) at least somewhat favor a law that includes such a mandate, while 53% are at least somewhat opposed. This includes 19% who Strongly Favor the law and 38% who Strongly Oppose it.

Obama earns 75% support from those who Strongly Favor such a law. Ninety percent (90%) of those who Strongly Oppose it prefer Romney.

It's not just gay marriage. People don't like the healthcare bill. People don't like the Stimulus. People blame Obama for them and other wasteful spending. This is the State that just voted better than 3:2 to ban even civil unions. So, will Obama get NC? No.

Will people who can't get a job run to the ballot box because the President, personally, supports gay marriage, even though he doesn't view it as a civil rights issue?

I doubt it. On the other hand, many people who might have been indifferent about Romney won't be indifferent about him now.

He won't have that advantage over Obama, and Obama's Chicago team are already going negative over Romney. Attacking him in his suppossed strengths.

The question is will it be effective? Only if Romney lets it be. So far, so good. His campaigns responses have been better than Team Obama's ads.

Gracious of you to consider the apocalypse possible...
Realistically, to win he needs win only 27 of the 125 electoral votes in the "toss up" states. If, even you grant him Colorado he would then need only 18. He's ahead in Wisconsin and New Hampshire which would give 14 more.... Mitt would need to sweep the other 7, and he's running behind in 6 of them right now.... Ohio? Obamas up there and with 18 electoral votes that would be it. Something about the success of the auto bailout bouying him there...

Like I said, talk to me in July. I don't think you will be so optimistic. I think you are going to see the number of "swing States" mysteriously increase.

Why? Because Obama has done a poor job, but can't stop his braying and preening. He's just not believable anymore to all but the most ardent supporter.

And those increments will serve to be amongst the newly enthusiastic young and the minorities in the bag for Obama.

"Enthusiastic young" and unemployed with no hope other than a government handout? I don't think that's a winning combo. I think it's sad that you do.

Thats my story and I'm sticking to it.

You're dreaming. His decision won't just hurt him in red States, but in purple States that will be much closer than versus McCain. It will tip the scales against him in Florida, Arizona, and Nevada, among others. According to PPP, Obama has one point lead over Romney in . . . Wisconsin.

If Romney somehow wins Wisconsin, that's indicative of a wipeout. But, I don't want to interrupt your delusion.

steve

According to PPP, Obama has one point lead over Romney in

.

I thought you were a big Rasmussen fan. He has Obama up by 4 in Wisconsin.

rickyp wrote:steve

According to PPP, Obama has one point lead over Romney in

.

I thought you were a big Rasmussen fan. He has Obama up by 4 in Wisconsin.

Funny, since you're the one who hates Rasmussen. The point is that Wisconsin is not typically purple. Now, maybe the unions and liberals blew it with one too many recalls.

Either way, if Wisconsin goes to Romney, this thing is over.

Polls right now are pretty meaningless. Wait until the independents and moderates find out about all of Romney's weaknesses. Obama has a huge war chest and he is going to hit Romney hard. Then we'll see how people feel about Romney. This might be a close election, that is certainly a possibility, but I think it is somewhat delusional to think that a non-charismatic, out-ot-touch, northern elitist, vulture capitalist, Mormon flip-flopper is going to run away with this thing. It's not going to happen.

What does Mormon have to do with this? Perhaps some anti-religious bias is showing?

b

What does Mormon have to do with this? Perhaps some anti-religious bias is showing?

I think its recognition that for some people Mormons represent a cult that they abhore. His mormonism has always been problematic for a certain percentage of the electorate.

However, I don't think its quite the game changer that many suspected. In the same way that virtually all conservative Blacks will hold their noses and still vote for Obama despite his call on gay marriage - virtually all fundamental Christians will hold their noses over Mitts religion and vote with the social conservative.

And I don't think polls are meaningless at this point, as an indicator of the election outcome. At least not those conducted in the swing states... The election is going to swing on a thin wedge of undecided voters, or genuinely swingable voters, in the 10 swing states... Its there where Freemans rant may be accurate or it might be the socailist Obama rant that wins out.
Personnally I think Freeman's characterizations will be easier for Obamas negative campaigners to make stick with the undecideds then the socialist Obama rant. For one thing, the latters been done to death. The former will at least be new and therefore a little more interesting. Plus the hyberbole over Obama contradicts what people have witnessed.
Obama is nothing like a socialist. Moreover, the conservative "austerity plans" in Europe have been a road map for a lot of people. And the idea that austerity alone will suceed in the US is a lot tougher sale becasue of its failure in Europe.
Beyond that, despite Obama not delivering the promised goods, there's the realization that he was dealt a bad hand to start and then, stopped in doing much by Congress. Most importantly in the upcoming battle over economic ideas, there's the realization that Romneys plans don't add up....
for instance:

The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has taken a close look at this question. It has determined that relative to current policy — that is, if you keep the Bush tax cuts in place, as Romney wants to do — Romney’s tax cutting plans would increase the deficit by nearly $5 trillion over 10 years. That’s on top of keeping the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Romney has promised to close various loopholes to pay for his tax cuts, but he hasn’t specified which ones. Until he does, the Tax Policy Center concludes, his plan would cost $5 trillion — which would be added, yes, to the deficit.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopic ... y-plan.cfm

Eventually Mitt has to make numbers add up. There are those who believe in magic when it comes to economic numbers and won't care that his numbers are faulty. But they are already committed to Mitt. The undecided, will need convincing that what he wants to do isn't just a rehash of Bush jr.And that will require math skills that Romney hasn't demonstrated.

Ad polls that tell you WHY people have the voting intentions they do are particularly instructive.
Todays FOX news poll has Obama up 7 points. But whats really interesting is the wuestion why the voters are voting the way they are:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interac ... tial-race/

On question 4, the number one reason , why fully 43% of the people prefer Mitt, he isn't Obama.
Jobs and economy are only 8% of his support,

Thats why I think the election is already pretty settled and unlikely to change much. Its not really issues oriented. An awful lot of voters are simple conditioned.

That's crazy. You cannot predict something like this without an awful lot of hubris and denial and an inadequate understanding of history and how the world actually works.

Oh please Ray. The political environment in the US is poisonous. You've got folks like Steve who have such a hate on that rationale arguement no longer matters.
And you've got a media that beleives everything is two sided and as such there is little regard for objective truth.
That results in a settled situation where the country is horribly and irrevocably divided until there is a generational change.


Evidence:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/us/po ... ma.html?hp

More: ? Romney was basically allowed to get away with the claim that Obama was responsible for a prairie fire of debt, without looking at what actually happened in the past. (Reagan tripled debt in his term. Bush 2 etc. ...)
And then his own proposals would increase debt not decrease debt. (Unless one beleives in magic.)

With a media that beleives they need to report "both sides" rather than provide objective analysis there's little hope that rationality will be restored for some time.
Which means the debate is largely over and the sides have largely made up their mind. All thats left is the screamng and hollering.

but you've said:

Thats why I think the election is already pretty settled and unlikely to change much.

What do you mean the election is settled?

RickyP, as a numbers guy, I am surprised that you would fall prey to this. (Unless it was intentional....)

http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html

Reagan increased the deficit from 1 Trillion to 2.6 Trillion in 8 years. (close enough to 3, but I am just being specific)
That is an increase of 200 Billion/yr. Not good numbers in my book, but compare them to those who followed:

Bush I 1.5 Trillion in 4 years (400 Billion/yr...Problem, but not critical)
Clinton 1.2 Trillion in 8 years (150 Billion/yr... Nice, but still not perfect)
Bush II 5.5 Trillion in 8 years (687 Billion/yr... BAD, BAD, BAD)
Obama 2.9 Trillion in 3 years (966 Trillion/yr)

Do you RickyP really condone what Obama has spent compared to his predecessors based upon a percentage of growth? What would the percentage of debt growth would be with a debt of 100 Trillion and a deficit of 1 Trillion? Only 1% What happy days that would be! (sarcasm intended). Is 100 Trillion sustainable as a debt? Certainly not, our system would collapse under the weight of debt.

So RickyP, do you condone the massive spending increases that have occurred? If the debt increases under Obama's predecessors is bad (that is your inference), and Obama's is ok (based upon your previous statements); that is then a dichotomy.

My stance is that a deficit is bad regardless of political party. To blame Steve for the political "poison" is certainly one-sided. I would think that there are others. I am sure that if you gave it some thought (please try, btw) you could even name one or two from the opposite side of the aisle (maybe on this board even!)

You add to the poison just as much. Physician heal thyself.

Brad's post seems objective and rationale to me unlike Ricky's very emotional approach.

Awww, Shucks.

It would have been even better if you adjusted your numbers for inflation and population.

Dang! (still swear word free...)