Romney Takes Lead in Ohio as Obama Campaign Panics

Right compromise, no tax increases. He can still push his social issues but only if he can do so without raising taxes.

 

Um...looks like the Dems were more energized.

 

I did my part. My county went 58% for Romney. Nothing I could do to increase his chances better. I wish I had that kind of power.

 

Where is Sammy and Subdermal? Hiding in the Republican "bubble"?

 

Republicans had only one objective after they won in 2010 and that was to prevent Obama from being re-elected. They waisted all the peoples time and money in congress towards that one single goal. Obama would like to compromise but the Republicans would do anything to prevent Obama from succeeding. We need to first find Republicans who wish to comprimise not this conservative tea party trash.

Asked what that "job" was, McConnell explained that "the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/27/news/la-pn-obama-mcconnell-20101027

 

Do you have an update on Chris Matthews' emotional state? You seem to have disappeared. Is everything okay?

 

And just how are YOU feeling today Mr. Sammy? Upbeat?

Night and day indeed. LOL!

 

You were partly right.

 

Looks like the majority of the country didn't buy the right wing propaganda.

 

You were right Captain. It's like Christmas came early. All the stupid predictions have come home to roost.

 

In my state, the Republicans are frankly stumped, to the point of brain-freeze. They were absolutely, utterly convinced that Romney was going to cake-walk his way in.

And it gets stranger. Historically it's a red-state, but in 2006 voters sent a Democrat-senator to the Senate. The Republicans figured it had to be a fluke, and so they out-spent the Democrats four-to-one on campain advertising in order to correct voters of the errors of their ways and to bring them back into the Republican fold... yet the people *still* reelected the Democrat Senator.

I was told the reason Romney took so long to concede was because he didn't have a surrender speach in his back pocket... he was that convinced he'd win.

I'm imagining the Republican Pubah-plutocrats going berzerk on the campain strategists, demanding to know what the hell happened when they had so many numbers indicating they'd win, but I have a theory...

... Maybe the Rep. strategists were factoring into their equations the historical voter apathy of Dem. supporters, and maybe this time the Dem. supporters got up and did something that Rep. supporters have always been good at, which is show up and actually vote.

Hmm.

 

It will be very interesting to watch the upcoming war in the Party of Grover. Two relative "moderates" have lost. The hard right Tea Partiers will be saying they need to go full bore hard right. But they are u against an electorate that has rejected the conservative option twice now.

Will we get a hard right candidate in 2016, or will moderates prevail?

 

On CNN last night, one of the Republican-supporter commentators said he believes it all boils down to the Dems having grabbed the middle-ground, which got them the Independent vote, and that Republicans are going to continue to be shut out insolog as they insist on being right-of-center without also holding the middle ground.

 

I think that we should keep this thread alive for a while.
Such an embarrassing title.

 

I think that we should keep this thread alive for a while.
Such an embarrassing title.

 

There are literally dozens of threads similar to this one. The management of this forum needs to figure out whether this is going to be a place for serious political discussion or just a place for right wing idiots to take a dump.

 

Ha,ha, turns out you were wrong.

 

Ouch, looks like your post is the one that is going to make you, not libs, unhappy.

 

Not every single voter, but enough to need a recount. That's all we needed.

 

I could lose an election and I wouldn't need to spend a BILLION dollars doing it.

 

I heard that republican strategists are getting their livers ripped out by the bank-rollers, who are demanding to know what went wrong, because according to all classical theories, Romney should have won.

The republican strategists played it by the book, which says that voters will drop the incumbent if the economy's in rough shape and if there have been annoyances like a significant jump in the national debt. They say that's why Romney didn't have a surrender-speech ready, and had to stall for time before conceeding... because his speech-writers had to script something in a last-minute panic.

Yet Obama's supporters stuck with him, accepting Obama's statements that it's a long-term solution and people must be prepared to tough it out. They say that's never happened in American election history before.

There's going to be a lot of new books written about paradigm-shifts and how to get elected in the post-Obama era (which hopefully will just amount to having the US back to its pre-Reagan condition... a time when one job could provide enough money to support a family, buy cars and houses, pay for kids' education, and save for retirement, without everyone being up to their earlobes in debt).

 

Commentary that you are fully capable of being a loser for less money: noted.

 

He wasn't a loser, unless you're still hoping for some miracle to emerge! LOL!

 

Thread exceeds 500 posts. Feel free to start another.

Shangrila
Site Moderator