View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
windoggi
Joined: 22 Feb 2002 Posts: 2743
|
Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
pueno wrote: | and how miserable the GOP candidates were? |
are? _________________ /w\ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008 Posts: 5180
|
Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Given your collective assessment of how poor the Republican candidates have been and are, it's a little difficult to understand how Democrats have lost every single important election since Barack Obama became President.....three and a half years, every single noteworthy election. Hillary should have run against the President. She would probably have beaten him and Romney. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
MalibuGuru
Joined: 11 Nov 1993 Posts: 9293
|
Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No fooling. At least Hillary would give this economy a fighting chance. Her Hubby seems to be undermining Obama as an amature at every chance he gets.
C'mon lefty's, admit that Obama is an abject failure... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
keycocker
Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 3598
|
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 3:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think Americans want a change for the better and instead things are getting worse.
The voters are throwing out folks for little reason. Bushs bad governing brought us Obama, and the Dems taking Congress.Lack of change brought us the Teas whose legislative record is not so impressive despite the good intentions of each of these agents of change.
Good government is not easy. Behind much of the bad government is the lobbyist branch of government which does not get elected or change with the Party in power.
If you want better government fire all those guys as a warning to their replacements.They are far more powerful than the President. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
pueno
Joined: 03 Mar 2007 Posts: 2807
|
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 6:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
windoggie wrote: | pueno wrote: | and how miserable the GOP candidates were? |
are? |
Yes, of course, absolutely, even more clownish than four years ago (they were merely scary pathetic then).
But the point was a comparison of campaign financing in 2008 and the suggestion that that was the cause of Obama's victory.
It was, in part, but to a much larger degree because Palin was (still is) such a fringe flaky fruitcake and because the world was delighted to see Bush/Cheney no longer pulling their shit. Hell, even Bush was sick of Cheney. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002 Posts: 9118 Location: at a computer
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001 Posts: 4161
|
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 9:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote from the Washington Post poll:
Quote: | The Quinnipiac poll was conducted by live interviewers with 1,282 registered voters between May 30 and June 4, on land lines and cell phones. The poll’s margin of error is plus or minus 2.7 percentage points. |
As in most polls, they don't tell you how they were taken, but in this one, they did. I don't put much faith in polls because I think many are biased and rigged, but maybe that's just my skepticism.
While the Quinnipiac poll gives SOME information about how it was taken, I can't help but wonder if the "1282 registered voters" were evenly divided between democrats and republicans or if there were any independents, and if party affiliation was even a consideration. This may be a legitimate poll, but unless there is full disclosure, I can't put much faith into any results. How hard would it be to include all the specifics about the polling process? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002 Posts: 9118 Location: at a computer
|
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Its just a poll, and it is June, so anything can happen. BUT, the Republicans have nominated a Private Equity titan to run for president in a time where many are quite salty when it comes to Wall Street....that will be tough to overcome when attempting to unseat the incumbent. Mr Romney will have to make a decision at some point whether he will endorse the aggressive cuts of Paul Ryan or Mr. Walker. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008 Posts: 5180
|
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
The "aggressive cuts" Ryan is proposing, are merely a reduction in the rate of increase.........not the gutting of social programs that many call them. Walker's program seems to be working. He has cut spending, slashed the deficit, lowered property taxes.........and all this occurred with none of the dire consequences predicted by the unions and others. He seems to be on the right track. Others will attempt to emulate him.
With regard to VA in November........not sure how that will go. My wife, my daughter, most of my neighbors voted for the President last time. About 18 months ago, I asked my neighbors how they thought he was doing. They said they thought he was doing OK and was certainly better than Sarah Palin (!). However, with no sign of any improvement, with no serious plans for reducing the debt or deficit, I suspect that many will wonder whether anything will change if we give him 4 more years. Also, Mitt Romney is a serious alternative. If the election were held today, I think VA would go for Romney........but 5 months is a long time. We'll see. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002 Posts: 9118 Location: at a computer
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|