|
44898. concerned - 11/2/2012 5:43:33 PM Of course, Gallup will claim in a week or three, especially if Romney wins, that this '7.0%' figure was a fluke or error and that the real figure was 8% yada yada yada. This 0bamasucker drill is old hat by now. 44899. concerned - 11/2/2012 5:53:47 PM The 'End Climate Silence' crew are persistent little liars, aren't they? So *one* Leftard mole thought it was a smart idea to bring one of these propaganda sheets to a Romney campaign stop? Big deal. 44900. robertjayb - 11/2/2012 6:07:29 PM Can't make this stuff up:
Remember when Mitt Romney said Russia was our "number one geopolitical foe"? Well:
Matt Romney, a son of the Republican presidential nominee, traveled to Moscow this week seeking Russian investors for his California-based real estate firm. (KOS)
Meanwhile, another patriot surfaces:
George W. Bush is speaking at a conference on tax-avoiding offshore investments in the Cayman Islands. (various)
44901. judithathome - 11/2/2012 6:37:24 PM 44899
But had it been some Tea Party advocate at Obama's rally with a "Show us your papers, please" sign, you'd be chortling about how brilliant they were and how insensitive/blind/evil the lefttards at the rally were... 44902. winstonsmith - 11/2/2012 6:57:27 PM I don't think Gallup is trying to skew the election with their jobs report. I think those are the numbers. They came up with based on the polling they did. Likewise, I don't think the favorable poll numbers they have have been posting for Romney are calculated to boost him. They are just the results they are getting based on their current polling methodology.
I am a small business owner and my sense is that the economy is slowly improving. I think whoever gets elected will get credit for it. 44903. judithathome - 11/2/2012 7:02:40 PM Yes, and I think if Romney is elected, he will definitely take credit for the jobs created by Sandy...as will Obama. 44904. concerned - 11/2/2012 7:29:40 PM Re. 44902 -
The timing is certainly suspicious for the sudden trumpeting of the Google jobs reports. The good news is that few people will find themselves able to take this upstart seriously which does not offer any breakdown information, nor should they with the much more accurate and specific BLS reports available. 44905. concerned - 11/2/2012 11:10:03 PM Staten Islanders On Sandy Response: We’ve Been Left FAR Behind
Borough Is In Shambles, But Little Help Has Arrived; They Ask: Where Is FEMA?
Sheesh! Haven't they heard about the website FEMA has set up so they can get money sometime next year? Oh, their laptops and Ipads all were ruined? Guess they're SOL then.
FEMA is making their performance after Katrina look great by comparison.
44906. concerned - 11/2/2012 11:27:53 PM The Veep Speaks!
'There's Never Been A Day In The Last Four Years I've Been Proud To Be His Vice President'
Let's change all that November 6th!
44907. concerned - 11/3/2012 12:54:40 AM Pew Research (a Lefty site) says MSNBC more politically biased than Fox.
 44908. judithathome - 11/3/2012 8:41:17 PM
That's bullshit but props to you for searching until you found something that fit your preconceived notions. 44909. arkymalarky - 11/3/2012 9:34:21 PM Let's see a chart on who's more accurate. 44910. arkymalarky - 11/3/2012 9:37:36 PM Right now Fox is beating the Benghazi "coverup" false story/dead horse. 44911. winstonsmith - 11/3/2012 10:31:23 PM I'm looking forward to election night. We will have some friends over to enjoy a likely Obama win. If he loses, we can at least be happy that the election is over. 44912. arkymalarky - 11/3/2012 11:45:09 PM I need to do that. I told Stan I wanted to go out, but now things look better I may want to stay home, but it would be nice to have people over for a distraction. 44913. iiibbb - 11/4/2012 12:38:03 AM So neither of those press venues is presenting any kind of positive story about either candidate. 44914. judithathome - 11/4/2012 6:05:49 PM Evidently, all the networks feel they must be balanced in their trashing of each candidate...I've seen a few say nice things about one but then they follow it up with nice things about the other, whether deserved or not. All in service to being FAIR.
FOX doesn't do this...they could be considered more honest in their outright hatred of Obama, I guess....it's all negative, all the time.
I think that graph Con'd posted showed a lot of things from MSNBC in the negative column about Romney that were counted as such because they were simply the truth...heh.
Face it, there really IS no way to tell if the guy is being honest because within a day, he is taking the opposite position. HE doesn't even know what he believes.
Jon Hunstman was correct...a well-lubricated weather vane. 44915. resonance - 11/4/2012 6:16:36 PM This is all bread and circuses if you ask me. Obama's going to get between 300 and 330 EVs and probably 2% more of the popular vote. It's not a landslide but the numbers are well defined. Even if you take all the truly close races -- NH, Florida, Colorado and Virginia -- and give them to Romney he still doesn't get to 270.
This is, for the record, what the smart polls have been predicting for months now. And it's what I've been saying for months now, but I can't really take intellectual credit for that, it's down to people like Nate Silver.
It's already been happening, but after the election you're going to have all these right wing entertainers looking for scapegoats as to why they lost, and I'm willing to bet real money that you'll see them screeching about Silver as loud as anyone. 44916. resonance - 11/4/2012 6:37:47 PM After 2008 my position was that the GOP was going to be faced by a civil war between moderates and crazies, and while I hoped the moderates won, my gut told me that the GOP was just gonna double down on 'stupid'. This is what happened -- again, I'd love to take intellectual credit for that, but it was pretty obvious at the time too.
I think the same thing's going to happen this time, but worse. And what I think -- what I honestly think -- is that this time the moderates just might have a real shot at steering that party away from the troglodyte wing. It's got to dawn on someone over there sooner or later that if they'd run a principled moderate this time they would have won in a landslide -- and by 'someone' I mean the bastards holding the purse strings that have to realize at some point that getting some, of some of what they want, is better than getting nothing of all they want.
And the other side of it is that a GOP moderate wouldn't have needed the Kochs' money, Sheldon Adelson's money, to win this one. The money men don't change much, what they want is always the same, but the racehorses are in it for themselves and their own vision -- at least one of them is going to recognize that there's an opportunity there and that fortune favors the bold.
It will be an uphill battle for them in 2016 because the economy will be a lot better then and because the Republican ground game, which has been their strength for a long time, has fractured into eclipse as their big tent has started disintegrating -- whereas the Democratic ground game is strong these days, being rebuilt from the ground up. My sense of it is that someone like Christie or maybe even Mitch Daniels will have the best chance on that side -- the GOP has to nominate someone who can capture the independents on their own hook, can't be someone who alienates Hispanics, and doesn't have to labor as a standard bearer for the previous 16 years of GOP nonsense.
However, I'll admit it. This is what I want to be true, so I'm a little worried about readily believing it. 44917. arkymalarky - 11/4/2012 8:13:43 PM What people had better watch is the state situation. The Coke brothers and others are spending big money to turn the state legislatures red, including Arkansas. What they can't win in 2012 they will be poised to steal in 2016. They Are spending tons of money in very red states like Texas and Arkansas.
|
