cawacko
Well-known member
Why is that?
When Mitt loses this elction the right will hate him again
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
Why is that?
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
He's repeating today's right wing meme - it's been all over twitter.
Must have been a memo...
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
Because cons suck lemons.
cawacko
Well-known member
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
See that's what you all look like to me!
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
this
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
KNIVES COME OUT 2 MONTHS EARLY
Mitt Romney Critics Hammer Campaign For Failure To Fight
WASHINGTON -- Mitt Romney and his team will be hit with a merciless barrage of friendly fire in the days after the November election if the presidential race continues its current trajectory and the carping from GOP analysts and strategists the past week is any guide.
"This is a gimme election, or at least it should be," said conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham on Monday. "If you can't beat Barack Obama with this record, then shut down the party. Shut it down. Start new, with new people."
Neither the conservative commentariat nor the base for which it sometimes speaks has ever been enamored of Romney, but the man who could hardly break 25 percent during primary season was chosen as the vehicle to drive Obama from office. With polls moving in the president's direction, the Romney campaign continuing to stumble, and Obama outraising Romney for the first time in months, conservatives are wondering if the lemon they bought is enough to finish the race.
The sluggishness comes just weeks after the conservative movement was brimming with hope over the selection of Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) to be the vice presidential nominee.
But the wished-for ideological battle has not fully materialized. With shaky poll numbers, the conservative thinking goes, let's at the very least go down with a fight. Invoking the specter of failed Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis, Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard warned this week, "It's not enough to float like a butterfly. You have to sting like a bee. No sting, no victory."
John Podhoretz, writing in the New York Post, slammed the Romney campaign's tepid response to its tailspin. "The Romney campaign seems to have settled on an argument that Obama's poll strength is just a post-convention 'sugar high,' as its pollster Neil Newhouse said in a strikingly infelicitous memo," Podhoretz wrote. "It's interesting Newhouse hit on the dismissive description of a 'sugar high' -- because a sugar rush is what Romney's side needs."
The low blood-sugar levels could be felt at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla. Convention speakers praised Romney only 213 times all week, less than a third of the kind words Democrats heaped on their president, according to tabulations done by HuffPost's Off The Bus crew.
Romney strategist Eric Fehrnstrom joined Newhouse as a target, as friendly critics would rather hit Romney staff than Romney himself while the campaign is still being waged.
"I'm sure he's a nice guy, but I don't happen to think he represents the best vision for Romney on camera," Ingraham said of Fehrnstrom. "Election after election, we hire people who have lost previous campaigns, who've run campaigns that have failed, who have message campaigns where the message fell flat, and they keep getting rehired ... I don't understand that. I don't know why those are the people you hire."
Columnist George Will, appearing on Ingraham's show, returned to an earlier theme -- that Romney simply isn't a born conservative. "Mitt Romney does not have the feeling, the visceral, philosophically sound feeling for what's wrong with the progressive movement in this country," Will said. “He's a good man, a good fellow. He'd be a much better president than the one we've got. But he doesn't -- what I've said before about him is conservatism is a second language for him. And he is still learning it. And it's hard to learn this thing in the midst of a high-stakes presidential campaign."
The Romney campaign has repeatedly refused to answer questions about what tax loopholes and deductions it would eliminate and what spending it would cut. Kristol said that it's time for specifics. "When a challenger merely appeals to disappointment with the incumbent and tries to reassure voters he's not too bad an alternative, that isn't generally a formula for victory. Mike Dukakis lost," he wrote in this week's column, headlined "Speak Up, Mitt!"
Weekly Standard columnist Stephen Hayes, talking on Fox News, echoed Kristol. "I feel like now we've sort of reverted to this pre-Ryan moment -- this safe, cautious campaign," Hayes worried, part of a chorus sounding resigned to the realization that while Romney may have chosen the combative Ryan, he left out the combativeness. Or, as former George W. Bush adviser Michael Gerson put it in the Washington Post, "Romney chose Ryan, not Ryanism."
But Romney's calculation -- that he may just be able to back into the White House -- may not be an unreasonable one. After all, he's not Obama, Rush Limbaugh reminded listeners.
"He may as well be Elmer Fudd as far as we're concerned," Limbaugh said. "We're voting against Obama. I don't care who they put on the ticket, we're voting against Obama. That has not changed, and there are more people now than in 2010 who are gonna vote against Obama."
Romney might still win, although his campaign hasn't made it any easier, according to Charlie Cook, the political analyst whose judgment carries great weight with both parties.
"This is a very close race and one that still could go either way," Cook wrote in National Journal. "But the odds of Romney capitalizing on this economy, and the opportunity it affords, seem lower than they were before the conventions. If Republicans and Romney supporters are growing nervous, they should be."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/mitt-romney-critics_n_1874573.html
Mitt Romney Critics Hammer Campaign For Failure To Fight
WASHINGTON -- Mitt Romney and his team will be hit with a merciless barrage of friendly fire in the days after the November election if the presidential race continues its current trajectory and the carping from GOP analysts and strategists the past week is any guide.
"This is a gimme election, or at least it should be," said conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham on Monday. "If you can't beat Barack Obama with this record, then shut down the party. Shut it down. Start new, with new people."
Neither the conservative commentariat nor the base for which it sometimes speaks has ever been enamored of Romney, but the man who could hardly break 25 percent during primary season was chosen as the vehicle to drive Obama from office. With polls moving in the president's direction, the Romney campaign continuing to stumble, and Obama outraising Romney for the first time in months, conservatives are wondering if the lemon they bought is enough to finish the race.
The sluggishness comes just weeks after the conservative movement was brimming with hope over the selection of Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) to be the vice presidential nominee.
But the wished-for ideological battle has not fully materialized. With shaky poll numbers, the conservative thinking goes, let's at the very least go down with a fight. Invoking the specter of failed Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis, Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard warned this week, "It's not enough to float like a butterfly. You have to sting like a bee. No sting, no victory."
John Podhoretz, writing in the New York Post, slammed the Romney campaign's tepid response to its tailspin. "The Romney campaign seems to have settled on an argument that Obama's poll strength is just a post-convention 'sugar high,' as its pollster Neil Newhouse said in a strikingly infelicitous memo," Podhoretz wrote. "It's interesting Newhouse hit on the dismissive description of a 'sugar high' -- because a sugar rush is what Romney's side needs."
The low blood-sugar levels could be felt at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla. Convention speakers praised Romney only 213 times all week, less than a third of the kind words Democrats heaped on their president, according to tabulations done by HuffPost's Off The Bus crew.
Romney strategist Eric Fehrnstrom joined Newhouse as a target, as friendly critics would rather hit Romney staff than Romney himself while the campaign is still being waged.
"I'm sure he's a nice guy, but I don't happen to think he represents the best vision for Romney on camera," Ingraham said of Fehrnstrom. "Election after election, we hire people who have lost previous campaigns, who've run campaigns that have failed, who have message campaigns where the message fell flat, and they keep getting rehired ... I don't understand that. I don't know why those are the people you hire."
Columnist George Will, appearing on Ingraham's show, returned to an earlier theme -- that Romney simply isn't a born conservative. "Mitt Romney does not have the feeling, the visceral, philosophically sound feeling for what's wrong with the progressive movement in this country," Will said. “He's a good man, a good fellow. He'd be a much better president than the one we've got. But he doesn't -- what I've said before about him is conservatism is a second language for him. And he is still learning it. And it's hard to learn this thing in the midst of a high-stakes presidential campaign."
The Romney campaign has repeatedly refused to answer questions about what tax loopholes and deductions it would eliminate and what spending it would cut. Kristol said that it's time for specifics. "When a challenger merely appeals to disappointment with the incumbent and tries to reassure voters he's not too bad an alternative, that isn't generally a formula for victory. Mike Dukakis lost," he wrote in this week's column, headlined "Speak Up, Mitt!"
Weekly Standard columnist Stephen Hayes, talking on Fox News, echoed Kristol. "I feel like now we've sort of reverted to this pre-Ryan moment -- this safe, cautious campaign," Hayes worried, part of a chorus sounding resigned to the realization that while Romney may have chosen the combative Ryan, he left out the combativeness. Or, as former George W. Bush adviser Michael Gerson put it in the Washington Post, "Romney chose Ryan, not Ryanism."
But Romney's calculation -- that he may just be able to back into the White House -- may not be an unreasonable one. After all, he's not Obama, Rush Limbaugh reminded listeners.
"He may as well be Elmer Fudd as far as we're concerned," Limbaugh said. "We're voting against Obama. I don't care who they put on the ticket, we're voting against Obama. That has not changed, and there are more people now than in 2010 who are gonna vote against Obama."
Romney might still win, although his campaign hasn't made it any easier, according to Charlie Cook, the political analyst whose judgment carries great weight with both parties.
"This is a very close race and one that still could go either way," Cook wrote in National Journal. "But the odds of Romney capitalizing on this economy, and the opportunity it affords, seem lower than they were before the conventions. If Republicans and Romney supporters are growing nervous, they should be."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/mitt-romney-critics_n_1874573.html
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
This is my opinion on that, and only my opinion.
The right wing is in complete shock that a majority of Americans do not have amnesia. I have long said that the right walks around "who am I? where am I? how did I get here?" as they rewrite history as they go. They never thought for one second that a majority of Americans would still remember whose watch the crash occurred on and continue to believe the economic collapse was Bush's fault. Yet...poll after poll shows precisely this.
And that is their problem. Not Obama's "record". But that too many Americans believe that he deserves more time, and that anyone would deserve more time to fix what they stubbornly insist on viewing as "Bush's mess".
The right simply cannot believe that their own mass amnesia has not infected absolutely everybody.
The right wing is in complete shock that a majority of Americans do not have amnesia. I have long said that the right walks around "who am I? where am I? how did I get here?" as they rewrite history as they go. They never thought for one second that a majority of Americans would still remember whose watch the crash occurred on and continue to believe the economic collapse was Bush's fault. Yet...poll after poll shows precisely this.
And that is their problem. Not Obama's "record". But that too many Americans believe that he deserves more time, and that anyone would deserve more time to fix what they stubbornly insist on viewing as "Bush's mess".
The right simply cannot believe that their own mass amnesia has not infected absolutely everybody.
Sure. Once Reagan developed dementia.
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
So you sayin Obama killed the wrong guy?
Thems fighting words. Don't tell te sycophants hete
mitt has some good things in his favor. he is still doing well among likely voters, independents, may be the first candidate in history to have more money than the incumbent, and no one with obamas numbers has ever won re-election. 8% unemployment, being under 50% approval rating for months, etc. What helps obama is there hasn't been a challenger with such high disapproval ratings. But there is still 11% undecided in this election, and I think given voters have had 4 years to make up their mind about obama, romney probably has more "potential" to get voters than obama does. There could very well be a last second break in his direction.
or not.
This is a close race, it always has been. it's going to go right down the wire.
..
http://thehill.com/conventions-2012/dem-convention-charlotte/247263-hill-poll-voters-think-second-term-undeserved
It depends on what you are talking about. Me, I'm talking about the week after the Convention, Carter was up by 17, and Dukakis was up by 8. I think you may be working on simple month comparison, which will show you how much one month can change things...
IMO, early polls, even two months out, are simply ridiculous as a measure, and especially so this close to Conventions.
Yeah, you're going to have to go ahead and cite your claims. I think you're way off base here.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Rush said it, the righties believe it, that settles it.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/07/10/summer_of_1980_poll_flashback_carter_39_reagan_32_anderson_21
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
"For weeks before the presidential election, the gurus of public opinion polling were nearly unanimous in their findings. In survey after survey, they agreed that the coming choice between President Jimmy Carter and Challenger Ronald Reagan was "too close to call." A few points at most, they said, separated the two major contenders. [/quote]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2098113/posts
"Remember that this [Reagan-Carter] race appeared close until the very end, with some polling even indicating that Carter might actually win just a few days before the election," Sabato says. "But Reagan proved his mettle in a late debate, and Carter's attempt to negotiate freedom for the American hostages in Iran failed. Those late developments helped turn a close election into a blowout."
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/Ke...reagan-at-this-point-in-the-presidential-race
As Jonathan Chait noted, 1980 is a poor comparison with 2012 for many reasons. One is simply that the economy is not as bad in 2012 as it was in 1980. Another is that Obama is much more popular than was Carter, whose job approval numbers were 15 points below Obama’s at this point in the campaign (see Gallup). Consider this: in August 1980, Carter’s approval rating among Democrats was about equal to Obama’s current rating among Americans as a whole. For more on the broader features of 1980 vs. 2012, see Matt Dickinson.
The plot shows what Chait describes, which is the ebbing of Carter’s poll standing throughout 1980. Indeed, Reagan didn’t need his convention bump—which he certainly got—to put him in the lead. The Democratic convention helped erode Reagan’s lead but it never closed it altogether.
http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/08/09/what-really-happened-in-the-1980-presidential-campaign/
None of this supports Damo's claim.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
I certainly think Obama is equal to Carter......the similarities are astonishing......
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
pardon me, are you the same BAC who claimed he didn't bring up race?....
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
Grind a Washington post poll, and a gallop poll were just both released showing Americans remarkably steady on continuing to blame Bush. Sorry, regardless of what you want, they haven't been stricken with amnesia.
You believe this race is close and will always be close - that's the media's refrain too. Well, they need a horse race for ratings. Continue believing that. Here is something you will remember later: No Republican has won the Presidency without Ohio.
You will think of that on election night when they call Ohio for Obama. They're going to call it earlier than other swing states so you will have your maps out and be doing the "arithmetic". Please come on here and post that night to reassure cons that there is still plenty of hope. We think we can we think we can we think we can...we know we know we can we know we can! I want you to really cheerlead that.
Cause it's gonna make it so much sweeter when they call it. I'm going to make one post the following morning. That post is going to be:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH
And you think liberals are going to cry if they lost? LMAO. Yeah, okay. Oh, there will be a show alright. Just not the one you have tickets for.