View Poll Results: Predict the result of the Presidential Election

Voters
74. You may not vote on this poll
  • Obama landslide (310 + electoral votes)

    2 2.70%
  • Obama comfortable win (290-310 EVs)

    17 22.97%
  • Obama close win (279-290 EVs)

    27 36.49%
  • Obama barely wins (270 + 278 EVs)

    6 8.11%
  • Exact tie 269-269

    0 0%
  • Romney barely wins (270 + 278 EVs)

    7 9.46%
  • Romney close win (279-290 EVs)

    7 9.46%
  • Romney comfortable win (290-310 EVs)

    7 9.46%
  • Romney landslide (310 + electoral votes)

    1 1.35%
Page 14 of 99 FirstFirst ... 412131415162464 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 280 of 1980
  1. #261
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Quote Originally Posted by 77devil View Post
    As you suggest, there is an ample record in Ryan's votes in the House if the dems want to attack his seriousness on fiscal matters. Ryan voted for at least 4 major unfunded programs that contributed significantly to the current structural deficit and national debt: Medicare part D, two wars off the books, and the 2001 tax cuts.
    The VP Debate should be interesting. If Biden brings up these portions of Ryan's record, how will he respond? How is Ryan as a debater (I'm actually curious since I've never seen him in a debate)? Of course, by that point, the focus should be on the presidential candidates and what they would do over the next 4 years, but the VP Debate is about that coupled with the candidates demonstrating that s/he can be ready on Day 1 to assume the office should anything happen to the president. If the economy, and more specifically the deficit, are the main battle points, expect VP Biden to bring that up in an attempt to lessen Ryan's status as a deficit hawk.
    Check out the Duke Basketball Roundup!

    2003-2004 HLM
    Duke | Mirecourt | Detroit| The U | USA

  2. #262
    I think you guys are all vastly overestimating the importance of the Akin moment with respect to the presidential race. I don't see how this is going to hurt Romney. He may have flip-flopped on the abortion issue in the past, but I don't think he's ever once advocated the anti-exception for rape policy (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this). I get the "it distracts from the economic discussion" idea, but I'm skeptical people will still be talking about this in two weeks, let alone two months. And if it does linger around somehow, I'm not sure it's more likely to hurt Romney than it is to help him, by providing him a (really easy) avenue to making a statement appealing to centrists in a debate or something. The Ryan connection might be something, but, eh, he's still only the VP candidate.

  3. #263
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Chicago

    Couple of points

    Quote Originally Posted by Wander View Post
    I think you guys are all vastly overestimating the importance of the Akin moment with respect to the presidential race. I don't see how this is going to hurt Romney. He may have flip-flopped on the abortion issue in the past, but I don't think he's ever once advocated the anti-exception for rape policy (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this). I get the "it distracts from the economic discussion" idea, but I'm skeptical people will still be talking about this in two weeks, let alone two months. And if it does linger around somehow, I'm not sure it's more likely to hurt Romney than it is to help him, by providing him a (really easy) avenue to making a statement appealing to centrists in a debate or something. The Ryan connection might be something, but, eh, he's still only the VP candidate.
    The time for Romney to have made the statement to the centrists, I think, has passed and he didn't do it. More to the point, I don't think he can do it, as that there's soft (comparatively) support for Romney among the base for whom abortion is an important point. If he makes the statement appealing to the centrists, he hurts himself with that base. He can't afford to do it.

    Also, the timing here is really bad, I think, in that it's right before the convention, and the abortion-related plank of the platform is very, very strict. Thanks to Akin, this is going to be a distraction during the convention, when Romney should have the chance to set the tone himself. Now, I don't think that will happen because of Akin's comments, the platform, the Ryan link, and Romney's endorsement by selection and silence of Ryan's position.

    I think the best case for Romney is that this only drums up fundraising support for Obama and motivates his core voter base more strongly. I think there's a real chance that Akin's comments will bring the GOP's abortion position to the fore of the discussion, and it's going to swing the undecided soccer mom vote -- an important demographic -- to Obama. If that happens, I think Romney's going to lose decisively.

  4. #264
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by Chicago 1995 View Post
    The time for Romney to have made the statement to the centrists, I think, has passed and he didn't do it. More to the point, I don't think he can do it, as that there's soft (comparatively) support for Romney among the base for whom abortion is an important point. If he makes the statement appealing to the centrists, he hurts himself with that base. He can't afford to do it.
    Yup, the time has passed:

    http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2...tt-romney?lite

    Rock}Romney{HardPlace

  5. #265
    Quote Originally Posted by Wander View Post

    I think you guys are all vastly overestimating the importance of the Akin moment with respect to the presidential race. I don't see how this is going to hurt Romney. He may have flip-flopped on the abortion issue in the past, but I don't think he's ever once advocated the anti-exception for rape policy (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this). I get the "it distracts from the economic discussion" idea, but I'm skeptical people will still be talking about this in two weeks, let alone two months. And if it does linger around somehow, I'm not sure it's more likely to hurt Romney than it is to help him, by providing him a (really easy) avenue to making a statement appealing to centrists in a debate or something. The Ryan connection might be something, but, eh, he's still only the VP candidate.
    The ultimate effect is still to be seen, but I can think of three ways it could affect the race off the top of my head:

    (1) It knocks Romney/Ryan off message, or at the very least makes it considerably more difficult for them to get their message through. Right now, all that anyone's talking about is Akin, and as long as Akin keeps digging in (and with another Republican lawmaker, Rep. Steve King, making an ambiguous statement could be interpreted as signaling sympathy for Akin and at least some non-trivial degree of alignment with his comments), it will continue to be THE story. This week was supposed to be the landing approach to the GOP convention -- a nice, obstruction-free week for Romney to continue introducing Ryan to the voters, and for the two of them to continue whaling away at the President and laying out their vision. But now, anything that they say about the economy, taxes, the budget, welfare, Medicare, President Obama, whatever is going to be page two material, at best. And they will inevitably be forced to discuss Akin and the abortion/rape issue in any interviews and press conferences that they give -- not just Akin's comments, per se (condemning Akin's actual comments is the easy part), but also explaining their own positions on abortion and what (if any) exceptions they would allow, which then opens up additional lines of questioning about the GOP platform, previous GOP-sponsored legislation, etc. Which brings me to....

    (2) It gives the Democrats an avenue to attack Ryan and, by extension, the GOP ticket. Piggbybacking on some comments by others earlier in this thread, I also initially thought that the Ryan pick was a good move by Romney, and I didn't subscribe to the immediate reaction in many circles that it was a great gift to Democrats that would justify any "salivation" on their part. It energized the conservative base, and it also gave Romney another intangible -- though substantial -- benefit. Ryan is indeed far to the right in many of his positions (at least, he is now -- the issue of whether he's been consistent on fiscal/spending issues, or is merely another post-2009 born-again deficit hawk, is certainly debatable, but that's for another sub-thread). But he's too smart and too prepared to implode like Palin, and he presents himself and his positions with an even temperament. He is, in short, a hard person to demonize, even though his positions may be unpopular. In this respect, he had (and may very well still have) the potential to help the ticket simply by contributing an aura of likeability and relatability, two characteristics in which Romney has been sorely lacking. As long as Akin is the story, though, and as long as Ryan's name is getting mentioned in the same sentence as Akin's, that aura is getting chipped away, bit by bit.

    (3) Finally, here's where we get into some actual electoral math. In order to win, Romney has to make substantial inroads in at least one of three demographic slices of the voting public where President Obama enjoys big approval and favorability gaps -- young voters, minorities, and women. To date, Romney's outreach to the first two groups has been half-hearted, at best. But he is trying to close the gender gap, particularly among suburban married women. The problem for Romney is that the can of worms that Akin opened is making that task much harder. I live in a swing region of a swing state (Richmond, Virginia), and I know women who fall all along the political spectrum. Earlier in the year, there was a huge uproar here over a bill in the state legislature that would have required any woman to have a transvaginal ultrasound before getting an abortion. I'm not exaggerating when I say that just about every woman I know -- from the liberal to the conservative to the normally apolitical -- was hopping, spitting mad over the bill (which ultimately failed, though a watered-down version requiring a non-invasive ultrasound eventually passed and was signed into law). This came right on the heels of the controversy that erupted after Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a "slut." The Republican brand is pretty low in general and really low among women, and Akin has just ripped the scab off of some very raw and still-festering wounds. And in a swing state like Virginia, the votes of a few thousand suburban women could end up making a big difference.

  6. #266
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    -Jason "I, for one, wish the conservative leaning posters would post here more -- I would love to hear their take on how Romney is doing so far, the choice of Ryan, the tax non-disclosure, and other stuff the liberals have discussed ad nauseum" Evans
    On the choice on Ryan, this Fred Barnes article in the WSJ, makes several interesting points:

    The presidential contest has been elevated into a clash of big ideas and fundamental differences.
    With his ambitious agenda for tackling debt and spurring growth, Mr. Ryan makes Mr. Obama seem smaller. With no plan of his own, Mr. Obama has made a fetish of ignoring the fiscal emergency. That stance no longer looks tenable.
    But Mr. Ryan has given the Romney campaign what it lacked: the ideas and the energy that provide a clear path to the White House.
    I like the Ryan choice. He brings youth and energy onto the GOP ticket.
    Bob Green

  7. #267
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Green View Post
    On the choice on Ryan, this Fred Barnes article in the WSJ, makes several interesting points:
    Apparently one of those big ideas is to hope that no one notices that Ryan's ambitious agenda for tackling the debt doesn't actually reduce the debt. So far, so good.

  8. #268
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hudson Valley
    And answer me this -- if he had said (as he claims he meant to) the same thing with the word forcible substituted for legitimate would this have blown up?

    Yes, but not as much. The attempt to distinguish "forcible rape" would still rightly outrage many women, and the "shut it down" language would still be frighteningly ignorant. But it wouldn't have ignited quite as large a firestorm.
    But that is not what he said - he said "legitimate" - which certainly implies that the woman ( at a minimum), acquiesces . Actually forcible does also (What is a non-forcible rape?) - so it doesn't make a big difference. The Dems can argue that he doesn't think a woman should have control over what happens to her body.
    Last edited by blazindw; 08-22-2012 at 07:56 AM.

  9. #269
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by gus View Post
    While Akin's "legitimate" comment and bad biology are getting the focus now, the truth is that his position is not dramatically different that the rest of the GOP. Romney has made statements about exceptions in cases of rape, but the GOP position is much closer to Akin's than that. Indeed, Ryan has co-sponsored bills with Akin, and it is difficult to reconcile the GOP push to define life as beginning at conception, and allowing abortion in certain instances.

    And a big reason this will work very effectively is because the GOP's "War on Women" has already been through enough news cycles to be accepted as fact.
    Disagree and agree. The reality is that Akin's comments are incredibly inflammatory BECAUSE of his ridiculous assertion that women have some natural biological defense against pregnancy if they are being raped, and the insulting implication that some rapes aren't "legitimate." You extrapolate that to the assumption that, if a woman got pregnant, she wasn't really raped, and you hit a whole new level of horror. Tying these comments to Romney or Ryan, as Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and other Dems are trying to do, is incredibly disingenuous, but may end up being good politics nonetheless.

    The GOP position is pro-life, but the party really hasn't gone forward with a platform position of life beginning at conception. Furthermore, the GOP has actually gone to great lengths to make exception for rape, incest, and threat to life of the mother and to try to eliminate that from the discussion of abortion.

    You're right that, if one does define human life as beginning at conception, you get into a very difficult question of whether an innocent human life can be destroyed because it is the product of rape or incest. It's a horrible concept to even consider, and makes those heinous acts even more evil, in that a rapist may put a woman who believes life begins at conception in the position of having to carry the baby to term, or destroy what she believes is human life.

    As for the war on women, there is truth that once an assertion, legitimate or not, becomes regurgitated often enough it begins to be accepted as fact. The Dems have done a great job of equating defunding Planned Parenthood with an assault on women's health. Whether the undecided public agrees with that assertion and whether it sways their vote is another question.

  10. #270
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by Duvall View Post
    Apparently one of those big ideas is to hope that no one notices that Ryan's ambitious agenda for tackling the debt doesn't actually reduce the debt. So far, so good.
    It does reduces the growth of the debt, however, and that's a big step in the right direction. If one assumes a relatively steady growth of GDP, reduction of the growth of debt still accomplishes the ultimate goal of making debt much more manageable. Ryan's plan also does not shrink, or even keep level, the federal budget. It merely reduces the growth of the federal budget. Yet it is still described by Democrats as "radical" and "budget slashing". On the one hand, the Republicans are hoping that Conservatives and Tea Party-ers and Libertarians will perceive Ryan as aggressively trying to shrink the debt. On the other hand the Dems are hoping their base, and moderates, will look at Ryan as some kind of radical who wants to slash the federal budget and all kinds of essential programs, leaving people starving in the streets. In fact, as you may expect, his budget proposals are far from either extreme, in instead represent a relatively modest (by real standards, if not Washington standards) reduction of the growth of federal spending.

  11. #271
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina
    Apologies for a third post - tried to addend this onto my previous post, but time expired while I was typing...

    Addendum on Ryan-Akin: Ryan is an openly staunch Catholic, which would inform his position that human life begins at conception. It would be interesting to have a discussion with Ryan as to how he feels about the obvious conflict between the rights of the unborn human life that is the product of rape, and the rights of the mother who was raped and does not want to be pregnant with the product of a violent act against her. That being said, at no point has Ryan stated, or put in a bill, any statement that abortion should be illegal in the case of rape, incest, or threat to the life of the mother.

    As for the question of threat to the life of the mother, even the Catholic Church, as a major organization supporting the belief of life-beginning-at-conception readily acknowledges that termination of the pregnancy may be necessary. Their logic (and this is from my discussion with 3 priests on the matter, and their response is consistent) is that the baby will die anyway if the mother dies, and it is better to save one life than lose two. Their hope is that everything will be done that is possible to save both the life of the mother and baby, and that, if the pregnancy is far enough along, early delivery will be done to attempt to save the baby without sacrificing the life of the mother...but if the mother's life is in danger at a stage of the pregnancy where the baby will not be viable outside of the womb, the pregnancy may be terminated to save the mother's life, as the baby is doomed regardless.

    There were interesting points about the possible legal interpretations of GOP proposed bills, and very interesting discussion about the potential impact of the Dem attempt to tie Romney-Ryan to Akin. I don't mean to derail, but wanted to clarify, if I could, the very large and real differences between Ryan's pro-life stance, and Akin's statements.

  12. #272
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by davekay1971 View Post
    Disagree and agree. The reality is that Akin's comments are incredibly inflammatory BECAUSE of his ridiculous assertion that women have some natural biological defense against pregnancy if they are being raped, and the insulting implication that some rapes aren't "legitimate." You extrapolate that to the assumption that, if a woman got pregnant, she wasn't really raped, and you hit a whole new level of horror. Tying these comments to Romney or Ryan, as Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and other Dems are trying to do, is incredibly disingenuous, but may end up being good politics nonetheless.

    The GOP position is pro-life, but the party really hasn't gone forward with a platform position of life beginning at conception. Furthermore, the GOP has actually gone to great lengths to make exception for rape, incest, and threat to life of the mother and to try to eliminate that from the discussion of abortion.
    Not in the platform they haven't.

    • “Faithful to the ‘self-evident’ truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed,” said the draft platform language approved Tuesday, which was first reported by CNN. “We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.”


    As for the war on women, there is truth that once an assertion, legitimate or not, becomes regurgitated often enough it begins to be accepted as fact. The Dems have done a great job of equating defunding Planned Parenthood with an assault on women's health.
    I doubt it was that hard to do.

  13. #273
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by Duvall View Post
    Not in the platform they haven't.

    • “Faithful to the ‘self-evident’ truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed,” said the draft platform language approved Tuesday, which was first reported by CNN. “We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.”




    I doubt it was that hard to do.
    You are absolutely right and I stand corrected that the language regarding abortifacients certainly imply a party platform that human life begins at conception, or very close to that point. Is there language that SPECIFICALLY asserts that life begins at conception? Thanks for the link!

    As for the second link, I'll avoid discussion to avoid partisan sniping. The argument as to whether removal of federal funding from Planned Parenthood represents an attack on women and womens' health is certainly debatable, but undoubtedly far too loaded for this thread!

  14. #274

    life begins at conception

    Quote Originally Posted by davekay1971 View Post
    Is there language that SPECIFICALLY asserts that life begins at conception? Thanks for the link!
    Don't know about the platform, but as for Mr. Ryan:

    More recently, Mr. Ryan was a co-sponsor of a House bill last year defining human life as beginning with fertilization and granting “personhood’’ rights to embryos, a movement that supporters say will outlaw abortions in all cases, and may also restrict some forms of birth control.

    That's from the NY Times: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...lier-position/

    Not 100 pct sure, but I believe that the bill Ryan sponsored to define an embryo as a human life and give embryos "personhood" was co-sponsored with Mr. Akin.
    Last edited by JasonEvans; 08-22-2012 at 08:33 AM.

  15. #275
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by Olympic Fan View Post
    Don't know about the platform, but as for Mr. Ryan:

    More recently, Mr. Ryan was a co-sponsor of a House bill last year defining human life as beginning with fertilization and granting “personhood’’ rights to embryos, a movement that supporters say will outlaw abortions in all cases, and may also restrict some forms of birth control.

    That's from the NY Times: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...lier-position/

    Not 100 pct sure, but I believe that the bill Ryan sponsored to define an embryo as a human life and give embryos "personhood" was co-sponsored with Mr. Akin.
    Absolutely no debate that Ryan views human life as beginning at conception (which is no surprise, given his devout Catholic faith). I think he and Akin are in agreement on that point. My question is whether the Republican Party, in any official capacity, has placed "personhood" beginning at conception on it's platform. Duvall's link was great, but the platform statements seem to fall just short of stating that life begins at conception. I'd be surprised if the Repubs would go so far...a big percentage of those who are pro-life aren't willing to go so far as to define life as starting at the moment of conception. I think the Repubs would lose more support than they'd gain by making that part of their platform.

    And again, Ryan agreeing with Akin that life begins at conception doesn't in any way imply he agrees with Akin that women have a mystical defense against pregnancy in "legitimate" rapes.

    Back to the thread, it will be very interesting to see if the Dem's attempts to tie Akin's comments to Romney and Ryan, and the opening they have with the bills Ryan and Akin have co-sponsored, will end up impacting the election in any meaningful way. I expect it to be a tie that the Dems push, regardless of whether Akin drops out of his own race, right up to election day.

  16. #276
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Pretty good summary of how Akins affects Romney/Ryan and the gender gap that already existed:

    http://www.wnyc.org/blogs/its-free-b...der-gap-widen/

  17. #277
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    St. Louis
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    Pretty good summary of how Akins affects Romney/Ryan and the gender gap that already existed:

    http://www.wnyc.org/blogs/its-free-b...der-gap-widen/
    The man's name is Akin. A K I N. That's not a jab at you, opk; it's a jab at this blogger who misspells the name a million times in his piece. It detracts from its readability and credibility. Even if he is otherwise correct.

  18. #278
    My comments on the state of the election, mostly well-worn conventional wisdom but nonetheless deeply felt:

    I am surprised that Obama is polling as well as he has been doing, given the lousy state of the economy. Economic determinism seems like the best single predictive theory, and if Obama can win under these conditions his reelection would almost be an outlier.

    On the other hand, I predict that Romney’s big money advantage will not be decisive. My theory is that there is an early point of diminishing returns on advertising dollars. Obama has the infrastructure and money for a ground campaign, and enough money to fight it out in swing-state advertising.

    The Rs are running a high risk / high return campaign. They are writing off African Americans, Hispanics and the right-leaning elements of the Democratic Party without worrying overmuch about further polarization. But if they win, there’s a good chance they will end up with control of all three branches of government simultaneously for 2 or 4 years, a pretty good argument for a mandate, a sense that time is working against them, and a inept (to put it mildly) Democratic Congressional block, opening a window of opportunity and a high degree of motivation to ram through major parts of their agenda. Tax cuts along with spending cuts in Medicaid and food stamps and rollbacks of Obamacare would be highly likely. I sit here having a hard time believing that even a R-controlled federal government would actually convert Medicare into a voucher system. However, even third-rail Medicare might be up for grabs. It could be a rough time for folks with liberal (or at least non-hard conservative) sympathies, rivaling 2001-2004.

    On the other hand, if Obama wins, we are looking at status quo – deadlock and continued R guerrilla warfare against Obama’s existing programs. There is zero chance the Ds are going to get a majority of the house, or filibuster proof Senate majority.

    What’s not going to happen is an actual improvement in the federal government’s finances no matter who wins, unless macroeconomic conditions dramatically improve, which seems unlikely (to say the least).

    A Virginia native, I have finally accepted that Virginia has truly become a purple state. Well-informed local prognosticators have Virginia as a true toss-up; however, at the end of the day, I am going to be surprised if Romney wins Virginia, for a lot of reasons. I might try to summarize my feelings as a confidence in Obama’s ground game, and Virginia’s natural interest, expressed well in the Northern Virginia vote, in as high as federal spending as possible.

  19. #279
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO

    Where's the Etch-a-Sketch?

    Quote Originally Posted by bird View Post
    I am surprised that Obama is polling as well as he has been doing, given the lousy state of the economy. Economic determinism seems like the best single predictive theory, and if Obama can win under these conditions his reelection would almost be an outlier.
    I expected Romney to move soldly towards the middle and tampen down the more emotional social issues that the Republican base alone seems to care about. It hasn't happened. The Akin diversion was not planned, but it appears that Romney is going to try to rerun the 2010 Congressional elections, focusing on health care. This is a far cry from the 1992 James Carville slogan for the Clinton campaign: "It's the economy, stupid!"

    The ACA, while complicated, has some internal logic. Medicare costs fall, e.g., (the $716 B budget reduction) not because benefits are cut but because hospitals have more paying customers and fewer that rely on charity, because of the other provisions of ACA. Therefore, providers have agreed to accept lower rates. Anyway, more discussion about health care is likely to make the ACA look better rather than worse.

    Oh, well, there are professionals on both sides, so I may be missing the logic.

    sagegrouse

  20. #280
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by sagegrouse View Post
    I expected Romney to move soldly towards the middle and tampen down the more emotional social issues that the Republican base alone seems to care about. It hasn't happened. The Akin diversion was not planned, but it appears that Romney is going to try to rerun the 2010 Congressional elections, focusing on health care. This is a far cry from the 1992 James Carville slogan for the Clinton campaign: "It's the economy, stupid!"

    The ACA, while complicated, has some internal logic. Medicare costs fall, e.g., (the $716 B budget reduction) not because benefits are cut but because hospitals have more paying customers and fewer that rely on charity, because of the other provisions of ACA. Therefore, providers have agreed to accept lower rates. Anyway, more discussion about health care is likely to make the ACA look better rather than worse.

    Oh, well, there are professionals on both sides, so I may be missing the logic.

    sagegrouse
    I am wholly unclear on what message Romney is trying to put out there over the last month. Very reactionary, not proactively setting the agenda. His foreign trip was problematic, and then he comes home to Medicare and abortion.

    To re-emphasize the quote from James Carville -- it's the economy, stupid. Mitt cannot seem to get there for some reason.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •