rickyp wrote:fate

Second, we've not had an election with this bad of an economy after a "recovery" in . . . . 70 years

Yeah. Well that was a helluva financial crash in 08. And you are right, that its taking time to crawl out of the crater. Same as back in the 30's.
But do people blame Obama for the situation?
According to Pew, not the Middle Class..

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/category/the-agenda/

Fifty-nine percent of those polled, who are likely voters across the nation, say they are worse off – in “worse condition” – than four years ago in September of 2008 just before Obama defeated Sen. John McCain in the national election. Fifty-four percent say that the president does not deserve another four years in the White House based specifically on his job performance while only 40% believe Obama deserves a second term.

A mere 31% believe the country is in a “better condition” than four years ago and 15% say the country is “about the same”.

The survey also shows that 59% of American voters are not happy with Obama’s economy. Fifty-one of those polled say they are very unhappy with the economic condition of the country right now.

Three percent more of those polled believe Mitt Romney will win the election rather than Obama as 46% believe Romney will defeat Obama and 43% believe Obama will defeat Romney.

Ray Jay wrote:Absent the Israel - Iran wlldcard, I think it will go down to the wire with 2 countervailing forces. Ambivalent voters will choose change if they are on the fence when they walk into the ballot box. However, Romney has indicated that he will replace Bernanke which motivates Bernanke to liberalize the economy this fall. The Fed will indicate renewed easing which will help the stock market, creating a good positive effect helping Obama.

The Israel - Iran wildcard can go in either direction. If Israel attacks Iran and oil prices increase, that may hurt Obama. On the other hand, if the US supports Israel, possibly because the US is attacked, that may create a rally around the flag Obama surge, particularly in Florida.

Asked about her statement on Fox News last night, Schultz asserted that the Examiner had deliberately misquoted her. Klein has posted the video of her Fox News appearance last night here and, cruel fellow that he is, has also posted the audio of Schultz’s allegedly (deliberately) misquoted statement (below). You be the judge.

Ray Jay wrote:Yes, I saw that as well; Of more importance to me is that the Democratic party changed its platform as it relates to the status of Jerusalem. Some Floridians will notice that as well.

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:Yes, I saw that as well; Of more importance to me is that the Democratic party changed its platform as it relates to the status of Jerusalem. Some Floridians will notice that as well.

In what way? Is it more important to you than domestic issues?

danivon wrote:What is the change, I meant.

I thought Presidential candidates weren't bound by the platform. That was the argument when we were discussing the RNC.

danivon wrote:What is the change, I meant.

Ray Jay wrote:It is worth listening to!

It didn't seem like 2/3rds to me. Wow! I don't like bad process, and that was bad process.

I think it is odd that both amendments were voted on together; they are too separate issues and should be voted on separately. What do you do if you support one amendment, but not the other?

I spend (too much) time looking at comments on articles about Israel in the MSM. I'd say support for Israel, and in particular supporting Israel vis-a-vis Iran is thin in this country.

Obama had seen the language prior to the convention, a campaign source said, but did not seek to change it until after Republicans jumped on the omissions of God and Jerusalem late Wednesday. And even then, it had to be forced through a convention hall full of delegates who nearly shouted down the change.