2012 Presidential Campaign

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Job figures are out. Unemployment drops to 8.1%, but it's not for the right reasons. Also, June and July job reports were found to have 41K fewer jobs than previously reported.

Federal Reserve Action Increasingly Likely After Disappointing August Jobs Report

[larrymcg421]

Definitely a misleading number, but one that will work for Obama politically.

[SirFozzie]

Mitt Romney, you ignorant slut.. (of the SNL variety, not the Sandra Fluke variety)

He responds to criticism that he didn't mention the troops in Iraq during his RNC speech, because he was mentioning the things that he thought were important.

Man, this is a backasswards election in quite a few ways.. when the Democrats thank the troops more then the Republicans (and with the national security cred that Obama got for taking out OBL...)

And usually it's the Democratic party candidate that says stupid shit like this.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Mitt Romney, you ignorant slut.. (of the SNL variety, not the Sandra Fluke variety)

He responds to criticism that he didn't mention the troops in Iraq during his RNC speech, because he was mentioning the things that he thought were important.

Man, this is a backasswards election in quite a few ways.. when the Democrats thank the troops more then the Republicans (and with the national security cred that Obama got for taking out OBL...)

And usually it's the Democratic party candidate that says stupid shit like this.

So the troops aren't important now? Wow.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

So the troops aren't important now? Wow.

Well, we are talking about a guy who not only skipped Vietnam, but spent his time in France converting Frenchies to Mormonism and then protesting in favor of the war.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

So the troops aren't important now? Wow.

It's because of the repeal of DADT, they are all gay now and the GOP hates teh gays.

[ISiddiqui]

Way to go, Mitt.

[sterlingice]

It's a gaffe. They happen.

SI

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

It's a gaffe. They happen.

SI

How is not mentioning the troops during your acceptance speech at all a gaffe??

[panerd]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

How is not mentioning the troops during your acceptance speech at all a gaffe??

Christ you are mad about the absense of the troops in a speech now? Sounds like something JiMGa would be upset about. What next? I am sure you are embracing the Dem's leaning more towards God right? Have some princples DT, just because Obama has become a warmonger doesn't mean you have to side with him on this nonsense.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

How is not mentioning the troops during your acceptance speech at all a gaffe??

And then being given a chance a few days later to say "oops, mistake" and say "I only talked about important things." instead?

[molson]

I wonder why Obama didn't mention gay marriage or global warming in his speech. I'm sure the technical answer is that they weren't particularly important topics for that speech, but he'd have a snappier response that would characterize it a different way. They're just speeches for supporters. I don't think they're intended to provide an official all-encompassing list of pertinent topics.

[kcchief19]

These aren't all on Romney but pick your colossal blunder:

* Campaign puts Clint Eastwood on as the opening act to Romney
* Nomination speech fails to mention troops and major military issues
* Campaign take five days off after the convention
* Campaign issues statement attacking Obama's speech 15 minutes into the speech
* In a friendly Fox interview teeing you up to reply to the troop fiasco, you get defensive and make an even worse gaffe

Have I missed anything in the last week? At this point, it would surprise me if someone in the Romney campaign pulled their pants down and took a dump in front of the press corps. It would be one of the least embarrassing things to happen to Romney.

You can't win a presidential election making amateur mistakes ... and the Romney campaign is making huge mistakes daily. Just a matter of time before you start seeing a commentary that if the Romney camp can't run a campaign, how can they run the country?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by panerd

Christ you are mad about the absense of the troops in a speech now? Sounds like something JiMGa would be upset about. What next? I am sure you are embracing the Dem's leaning more towards God right? Have some princples DT, just because Obama has become a warmonger doesn't mean you have to side with him on this nonsense.

1) You don't have to be a warmonger to be upset that a presidential nominee didn't mention the troops.

2) You don't have to be upset that a presidential candidate didn't mention the troops to think it was a pretty stupid thing to do.

3) You keep flying off the handle at someone's political analysis. Calm down.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by molson

I wonder why Obama didn't mention gay marriage or global warming in his speech. I'm sure the technical answer is that they weren't particularly important topics for that speech

Actually, the technical answer would be that he did.

[molson]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

These aren't all on Romney but pick your colossal blunder:

* Campaign puts Clint Eastwood on as the opening act to Romney
* Nomination speech fails to mention troops and major military issues
* Campaign take five days off after the convention
* Campaign issues statement attacking Obama's speech 15 minutes into the speech
* In a friendly Fox interview teeing you up to reply to the troop fiasco, you get defensive and make an even worse gaffe

Have I missed anything in the last week? At this point, it would surprise me if someone in the Romney campaign pulled their pants down and took a dump in front of the press corps. It would be one of the least embarrassing things to happen to Romney.

You can't win a presidential election making amateur mistakes ... and the Romney campaign is making huge mistakes daily. Just a matter of time before you start seeing a commentary that if the Romney camp can't run a campaign, how can they run the country?

And Obama can't pull away from him in the polls. Which tells you it really doesn't matter who runs. It's just D v. R.

[molson]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Actually, the technical answer would be that he did.

I scanned the transcript and did a couple of Ctrl-Fs, but I could have missed something.

Still, I'm sure he didn't talk about every important thing in the world. I just think that's a silly thing to criticize either speech about.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by panerd

Christ you are mad about the absense of the troops in a speech now? Sounds like something JiMGa would be upset about. What next? I am sure you are embracing the Dem's leaning more towards God right? Have some princples DT, just because Obama has become a warmonger doesn't mean you have to side with him on this nonsense.

My cousin is deployed, and has been for the last couple years.

Support the troops, oppose the wars is my motto.

Nope - not embracing the leaning towards God.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by molson

I scanned the transcript and did a couple of Ctrl-Fs, but I could have missed something.

Sorry, meant to quote the speech but I was rushing to get something done and just posted quickly.

Gay marriage (and abortion) using "coded" language: "If you give up on the idea that your voice can make a difference, then other voices will fill the void. Washington politicians who want to decide who you can marry or control health care choices that women should be making for themselves."

AGW: “And, yes, my plan will continue to reduce the carbon pollution that is heating our planet – because climate change is not a hoax. More droughts and floods and wildfires are not a joke. They are a threat to our children’s future. And in this election you can do something about it.”

Still, I'm sure he didn't talk about every important thing in the world. I just think that's a silly thing to criticize either speech about.

It is silly, but it wouldn't be a talking point if Romney doesn't fumble badly on the question. I don't remember anyone mentioning that Romney didn't bring up the troops in his speech (not that I was really paying attention to it), but when you make a gaffe that big on being asked, then people talk about it.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

1) You don't have to be a warmonger to be upset that a presidential nominee didn't mention the troops.

2) You don't have to be upset that a presidential candidate didn't mention the troops to think it was a pretty stupid thing to do.

3) You keep flying off the handle at someone's political analysis. Calm down.

And you and one or two others keep talking about me flying off the handle when I am not even addressing you. DT responded, don't really care what you think.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I think we need more 'angry' in this thread.

[sabotai]

Obama: 'Help Us Destroy Jesus And Start A New Age Of Liberal Darkness' | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

CHARLOTTE, NC—With the savage roar of the heathen Democratic horde rising all around him, President Barack Obama delivered an incendiary speech to close his party’s national convention Thursday night, commanding the ultraprogressive minions in attendance to help him “destroy Jesus and usher in a new age of liberal darkness that shall reign o’er the earth for a thousand years.”

[JediKooter]

The sad thing, if I posted that Onion article on my facebook, how many people would think it's real.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

The sad thing, if I posted that Onion article on my facebook, how many people would think it's real.

Literally Unbelievable

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Literally Unbelievable

That is priceless.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Literally Unbelievable

This one I don't get.



I can at least understand someone seeing a story from The Onion and thinking it's real, but I cannot wrap my head around someone thinking, "I know it isn't true, but because someone wrote about Republican's doing something offensive I cannot vote for them."

[sabotai]

"I know the onion isn't real news...most of the time"

LOL

[JediKooter]

If you can't pass The Onion test, you should not be allowed to vote.

[sterlingice]

Ok, so maybe ignore the point of the article but I wanted to grab one quote

Conventions often leave analysts star-struck - Yahoo! News

Piers Morgan said of Clinton: "An oratorical genius right up there with Churchill, Kennedy, MLK and Mandela."

It's so hard to make a call like that because we only remember the great speeches and to take an "everyday" speech and put it up there against "I have a dream", for instance, seems hardly fair. I gotta think Churchill had his off days or Mandela wasn't always perfectly on note. Hell, I bet Kennedy had a lot of gaffes in his campaign but the media wasn't there like it was today. So I'm not sure this is such crazy hyperbole as the story makes it out to be. Clinton doesn't have that defining speech (and no, "what the definition of 'is' is" or "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" don't count as defining speeches) but I bet his "average" oration is up there with those others.

(As an aside, I found it laughable that noted Cardassian and Fox News "analyst" Charles Krauthammer called the speech the other night a "giant swing and a miss". I get being partisan and, for instance, Bill O'Reilly is a master of the backhanded compliment which works well in this situation but, really, I think Clinton's speech had to be viewed positively, even if it's grudgingly)

SI

[dubb93]

Didn't the onion just post an article recently about Obama admitting to being the anti-christ and using the DNC to fire up his followers to destroy Christianity?

[dubb93]

D'OH. Now i click a link from the thread and find the link! LOL!

[stevew]

Least Helpful

Some of these reviews are hilarious.(not related to the election, but rather a sister site of the Literally Unbelievable)
http://leasthelpful.com/post/3093192...e-existence-of

[Vegas Vic]

It looks like Obama got about a 4 point bounce from his convention, while Romney got no bounce from his. If Romney doesn't win the first debate convincingly, he's probably toast.

[JPhillips]

The underlying numbers are even better for Obama. His approval went up to 52/42 and handling of the economy went from -33 net to -16 net. Those numbers will settle a bit over the next week or two, but it does look like Romney needs some sort of game changer. That's tough to do when your policies are generally unpopular with the public.

edit: But there's still time for a game changer. What happens if Israel attacks Iran or Greece exits the Euro?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

It looks like Obama got about a 4 point bounce from his convention, while Romney got no bounce from his. If Romney doesn't win the first debate convincingly, he's probably toast.

From what we've seen from the two of them so far (and in past elections), I don't think Romney stands much of a chance in the debates.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Hell, I bet Kennedy had a lot of gaffes in his campaign but the media wasn't there like it was today.

Awhile ago I watched a show on Walter Cronkite and part of it was about the Nixon-Kennedy campaign. Cronkite interviewed both of them, and Kennedy just completely flubbed it. He did so poorly that he wanted to do the interview a second time. I tried looking on youtube for the interview but couldn't find it.

[DaddyTorgo]

State of the race: Advantage, Obama - Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen - POLITICO.com

President Barack Obama heads out of the national political conventions with a much clearer path to winning, top advisers to Mitt Romney privately concede.

The Romney campaign, while pleasantly surprised by Obama’s lackluster prime-time performance, said the post-convention bounce they hoped for fell well short of expectations and privately lament that state-by-state polling numbers — most glaringly in Ohio — are working in the president’s favor.

“Their map has many more routes to victory,” said a top Republican official. Two officials intimately involved in the GOP campaign said Ohio leans clearly in Obama’s favor now, with a high single-digit edge, based on their internal tracking numbers of conservative groups. Romney can still win the presidency if he loses Ohio, but it’s extremely difficult.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...88619X20120908

Obama increased his lead over Romney in certain favorable characteristics. Asked who was more "eloquent," 50 percent of the 1,720 registered voters questioned in the poll favored Obama, compared to 25 percent for Romney. Asked about being "smart enough for the job," 46 percent sided with Obama compared to 37 percent for Romney.

In fact, Obama led Romney in a dozen such favorable characteristics, such as "represents America" or "has the right values." The only such category in which Romney had an advantage was being "a man of faith," as 44 percent picked Romney, who is Mormon, compared to 31 percent for Obama, who is Christian.

[JPhillips]

Romney has all but given up PA and MI. If he loses OH there may still be a mathematical way for him to win, but I don't see how it happens in the real world.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Romney has all but given up PA and MI. If he loses OH there may still be a mathematical way for him to win, but I don't see how it happens in the real world.

They've gone dark in Ohio too - pulled their ads off the air.

[JPhillips]

“I’m not getting rid of all of health care reform. Of course there are a number of things that I like in health care reform that I’m going to put in place,” he said on NBC’s “Meet The Press. “One is to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions can get coverage. Two is to assure that the marketplace allows for individuals to have policies that cover their family up to whatever age they might like.”

You can't keep the pre-existing coverage without a mandate.

Not to mention that this is going to seriously piss off a lot of wingers.

[Swaggs]

Seems like Romney is pushing the panic button a little too soon to me. He should still have a huge financial advantage and the convention bounces typically recede over time. Pulling out of PA, OH, and MI (especially the latter two), just shortens the field for Obama, hurts the GOP down ticket, and potentially opens up new swing states if Obama reallocates his resources (MO, AZ, maybe MT, GA, SC).

Today, he has come around to support some of Obamacare (basically, we'll keep all the good stuff like extending the age on children being covered and covering pre-existing conditions, but get rid of all the invasive stuff that pays for it) and taking his most extreme/clear stance on his desire to see Roe v. Wade overturned. These two "revelations" seem to be counterintuitive to one another (voting bloc-wise).

[Easy Mac]

He -10% chance of winning SC

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Seems like Romney is pushing the panic button a little too soon to me. He should still have a huge financial advantage and the convention bounces typically recede over time. Pulling out of PA, OH, and MI (especially the latter two), just shortens the field for Obama, hurts the GOP down ticket, and potentially opens up new swing states if Obama reallocates his resources (MO, AZ, maybe MT, GA, SC).

Today, he has come around to support some of Obamacare (basically, we'll keep all the good stuff like extending the age on children being covered and covering pre-existing conditions, but get rid of all the invasive stuff that pays for it) and taking his most extreme/clear stance on his desire to see Roe v. Wade overturned. These two "revelations" seem to be counterintuitive to one another (voting bloc-wise).

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

He -10% chance of winning SC

Yeah, if Obama wins SC it'd probably mean he has 400+ EVs.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

Yeah, if Obama wins SC it'd probably mean he has 400+ EVs.

You misspelled 500.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

They've gone dark in Ohio too - pulled their ads off the air.

With all the money they have? That just doesn't make sense to me. Are you sure that's accurate?

SI

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

With all the money they have? That just doesn't make sense to me. Are you sure that's accurate?

SI

That's what I saw. Virtually-silent and temporarily is maybe a better way of putting it...there was a tiny bit of spending I guess by one of the PACs.

Ad Spending in Presidential Battleground States - NationalJournal.com


Romney cedes Ohio TV airwaves to Obama (at least for now) - latimes.com

Originally Posted by blogger

Other than $800K from the Koch brothers, Republicans have been absent from Ohio airwaves. Given that they spent over $3 million in the state the previous week, AFP's action seems downright inadequate . And apparently, that AFP effort is in southern Ohio, so northern Ohio is a GOP-free zone.

The Romneys aren't pulling out. Ohio is part of their "carpetbombing" effort coming up next week. But why would you go dark at all? For all the bragging of the hundreds of millions they've been raising, they couldn't spare one million to keep their presence in the state?

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

It looks like Obama got about a 4 point bounce from his convention, while Romney got no bounce from his. If Romney doesn't win the first debate convincingly, he's probably toast.

It's continuing to grow. Gallup's 7-day tracking has Obama up 5 from a 1-point lead after the GOP convention. What's significant about that is half the survey still includes responses post-GOP and pre-Clinton speech. At the rate Obama is gaining, it looks like the bump could end up being closer to 7 or 8.

Rasmussen's 3-day tracking has gone from a 3-point Romney lead to a 4-point Obama lead for a 7-point bounce.

You got to expect the polls to drift back toward Rommey, but with the Romney campaign's bizarre decisions, does it really matter?

[JPhillips]

Rand Paul, you ignorant slut.

PAUL: The thing I don’t understand is that your arguing that the government sector is struggling. Are you arguing that there are fewer government employees under Obama than there were under Bush?

KRUGMAN: Of course. That’s a fact. That’s a tremendous fact.

PAUL: No, the size of growth of government is enormous under president Obama.

KRUGMAN: If government employment had grown as fast under Obama as it did under Bush, we’d have a million and a half more people employed right now — directly.

PAUL: Are there less people employed or more people employed now by government?

There are about 600,000 fewer government jobs than when Bush left.

[flounder]

But more federal government jobs.

[SteveMax58]

There is more to the size of "government" than just the amount of employees. There is such concepts as the size of (primarily financial) influence, amount of laws, etc. Using teachers, firefighters, and police as the example that government is shrinking is just as dishonest (or misguided) as arguing that tax cuts for the rich need to stay on the books or else the economy will recede further.

When my company spends $5M on a new technology initiative...we don't hire people (necessarily). We contract companies that may (or may not) hire or contract people/companies...and they may hire or contract people/companies. But our influence on what all of those companies & people do is larger than if we did not spend that $5M and our head count stays the same regardless.