Rommey starting to pull away in polls

[volinbham]

Here's where I see Romney potential:

1) he'll be more aggressive against regulatory growth
2) he'll be dealing with a Congress that is less likely to pass big entitlement programs (e.g. Prescription Drug Benefit)
3) he'll generally do less in terms of government programs to support particular industries.

May do's:

1) may oversee a tax code simplification
2) may oversee an attempt at entitlement reform.

Bush's big fiscal sins were wars (which I don't see Romney being as aggressive on) and Prescription Drug Benefits (people forget that Dems in Congress wanted a much more expansive/expensive program).

In short, I think the combination of the tone of the country, the stalemate in Congress and generally philosophy will mean Romney is more fiscally conservative than W and way more than Obama.

 

[therealUT]

Here's where I see Romney potential:

1) he'll be more aggressive against regulatory growth

It will not grow anyway with a GOP controlled congress.

2) he'll be dealing with a Congress that is less likely to pass big entitlement programs (e.g. Prescription Drug Benefit)

Same as Obama.

3) he'll generally do less in terms of government programs to support particular industries.

Again, not going to happen with the GOP controlled congress, anyway.

May do's:

1) may oversee a tax code simplification

Not unless he is getting rid of the Corporate Income Tax; I imagine that more loopholes (to attract industry) will be built in under Romney.

2) may oversee an attempt at entitlement reform.

I have no faith that he will even touch entitlements.

Bush's big fiscal sins were wars (which I don't see Romney being as aggressive on) and Prescription Drug Benefits (people forget that Dems in Congress wanted a much more expansive/expensive program).

Don't forget W's education funding.

As for wars, I do not see Romney being less aggressive. Romney has also promised to undo the 15% DoD cut that Obama signed.

In short, I think the combination of the tone of the country, the stalemate in Congress and generally philosophy will mean Romney is more fiscally conservative than W and way more than Obama.

Romney's rhetoric is more fiscally conservative than Obama's.

 

[Gramps]

Bush's big fiscal sins were wars (which I don't see Romney being as aggressive on) and Prescription Drug Benefits (people forget that Dems in Congress wanted a much more expansive/expensive program).

The GOP was in control of the White House, the House and the Senate.

The Prescription Drug Benefits would not have been passed if not for the GOP leadership swaying 3 members to change their votes from Nay to Yea.

The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives early on June 25, 2003 as H.R. 1, sponsored by Speaker Dennis Hastert. All that day and the next the bill was debated, and it was apparent that the bill would be very divisive. In the early morning of June 27, a floor vote was taken. After the initial electronic vote, the count stood at 214 yeas, 218 nays.

Three Republican representatives then changed their votes to "aye" under pressure from the party leadership. The bill passed by one vote, 216-215.

On June 26, the Senate passed its version of the bill, 76-21.

The bill came to a vote at 3 a.m. on November 22. After 45 minutes, the bill was losing, 219-215 with 1 present vote. Speaker Dennis Hastert and Majority Leader Tom DeLay sought to convince some of dissenting Republicans to switch their votes, as they had in June. One member chaged quickly to make the vote 218-216 In a highly unusual move, the House leadership held the vote open for hours as they sought two more votes.


About 5:50 a.m., convinced Otter and Trent Franks (AZ-2) to switch their votes. With passage assured, Wu the earlier present voter, voted yea as well, and Democrats Calvin M. Dooley (CA-20), Jim Marshall (GA-3) and David Scott (GA-13) changed their votes to the affirmative. But Brad Miller (D-NC-13), and then, Republican John Culberson (TX-7), reversed their votes from "yea" to "nay". The bill passed 220-215.


The GOP in total control is just as bad as the DEMS being in total control.

 

[volinbham]

The GOP was in control of the White House, the House and the Senate.

The Prescription Drug Benefits would not have been passed if not for the GOP leadership swaying 3 members to change their votes from Nay to Yea.

The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives early on June 25, 2003 as H.R. 1, sponsored by Speaker Dennis Hastert. All that day and the next the bill was debated, and it was apparent that the bill would be very divisive. In the early morning of June 27, a floor vote was taken. After the initial electronic vote, the count stood at 214 yeas, 218 nays.

Three Republican representatives then changed their votes to "aye" under pressure from the party leadership. The bill passed by one vote, 216-215.

On June 26, the Senate passed its version of the bill, 76-21.

The bill came to a vote at 3 a.m. on November 22. After 45 minutes, the bill was losing, 219-215 with 1 present vote. Speaker Dennis Hastert and Majority Leader Tom DeLay sought to convince some of dissenting Republicans to switch their votes, as they had in June. One member chaged quickly to make the vote 218-216 In a highly unusual move, the House leadership held the vote open for hours as they sought two more votes.


About 5:50 a.m., convinced Otter and Trent Franks (AZ-2) to switch their votes. With passage assured, Wu the earlier present voter, voted yea as well, and Democrats Calvin M. Dooley (CA-20), Jim Marshall (GA-3) and David Scott (GA-13) changed their votes to the affirmative. But Brad Miller (D-NC-13), and then, Republican John Culberson (TX-7), reversed their votes from "yea" to "nay". The bill passed 220-215.


The GOP in total control is just as bad as the DEMS being in total control.

Oh I agree - it was bad legislation. I was just saying that the Dem version of PDB was even worse.

 

[gsvol]

I generally agree and if I thought voting for a third party candidate had any realistic chance of helping a third party candidate be elected in the future, I would throw away my vote for that election.

I guess I just have such a cynical view of the American public that I assume a third party candidate will never make it. There are just too many people dependent on the government in so many various ways that a person that truly will cut government has no shot. Thus, I have to vote for the lesser of two evils.

During the twentieth century Woodrow Wilson usded Ted Roosevelt and the Bullmoose party to win the presidency and Clinton used lifelong democrat Ross Perot to gain the presidency, otherwise you would have to go back before 1900 to find where a 3rd party had much affect.

 

[therealUT]

Clinton used lifelong democrat Ross Perot to gain the presidency

Of those who voted for Perot, what percentage of them do you think would have voted for Bush?

 

[milohimself]

If he stands for something and the Republican party and their voters are so terrible he would have never ran for the nomination for the party.

So is fox news just endlessly projected on to your corneas? Impressive technology, how much did it cost?

 

[StoVol]

Pig vomit

 

[Burhead]

Well for starters Barry hates America and is a radical.

You got proof or evidence for either of those statements? Why is he radical for simply believing in a different political ideology? I may not agree with every one of his policy decisions but I don't fault the man for believing in his ideals.

 

[gsvol]

Oh I agree - it was bad legislation. I was just saying that the Dem version of PDB was even worse.

There are other differences as well.

 

[Weezy]

I thought GS hated Romney.

 

[mreed90]

So if Obama shot an M4 then gs wouldn't hate him as much?

 

[gsvol]

You got proof or evidence for either of those statements? Why is he radical for simply believing in a different political ideology? I may not agree with every one of his policy decisions but I don't fault the man for believing in his ideals.

Even when those ideals are at crosspurposes with the will of the people?

Unreal:

I would guess 60% minimum.

Bush was leading Clinton in polls.
Perot jumps in, campaigns well the the poll results were:
Clinton 1, Perot 2 and Bush 3.
But then a strange thing happened, the polls went to:
Perot 1, Clinton 2 Bush 3.
So without explanation Perot dropped out of the race.
But then when Bush pulled ahead of Clinton and Perot
got back in the race in time for Clinton to win.

Without Perot Clinton doesn't win in '91, it was an
orchestrated event, plain and simple.

Without election fraud, Obama has no chance in the upcoming election, there was unprecedented fraud in the last presidential election.

To Milo:
The answer could be that rahter than being a victim of some news organization, Justin may just have a working brain anc can figure it out for himself, unlike you evidently.

 

[milohimself]

First, at least attempt to spell correctly when calling somebody out for lack of brain function.

But why do you feel compelled to open your trap for him? I never said Joe couldn't speak for himself. Either you don't think that highly of him or you're sticking up for one of your precious few lemmings.

 

[gsvol]

First, at least attempt to spell correctly when calling somebody out for lack of brain function.

But why do you feel compelled to open your trap for him? I never said Joe couldn't speak for himself. Either you don't think that highly of him or you're sticking up for one of your precious few lemmings.

I don't fell compelled to do anything.

Why did you open your trap?

If there is any lemming on this board, it is you.

BTW, that was Justin not Joe, at least try to get your characters right.

His response was well thought out.

Your response was trite tripe!

As the dictionary defines it, a logical fallacy is "a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning."

Your dialectics have turned into dinkle berries.

Iowa Republicans and Iowa Democrats are both holding their State Conventions at the Iowa Events Center in Des Moines. If attendance numbers mean anything, Iowa Democrats are in big trouble.

The photo above was taken during the remarks of Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick who is keynoting the Democrat Convention.

The photo below is of the Republican convention during a debate on the proposed rules that govern the convention.

Notice the Dems have a much smaller room besides it looking like a ghost town event.

 

[therealUT]

Unreal:

I would guess 60% minimum.

Bush was leading Clinton in polls.
Perot jumps in, campaigns well the the poll results were:
Clinton 1, Perot 2 and Bush 3.
But then a strange thing happened, the polls went to:
Perot 1, Clinton 2 Bush 3.
So without explanation Perot dropped out of the race.
But then when Bush pulled ahead of Clinton and Perot
got back in the race in time for Clinton to win.

Without Perot Clinton doesn't win in '91, it was an
orchestrated event, plain and simple.

I would peg it between 60-65%. I have gone through the votes in each state in 1992 and reallocated Perot's votes on a 60-40, 65-35, and 75-25 metric.

60-40: Clinton wins 302-224
65-35: Clinton wins 271-255
75-25: Bush wins 365-161

So, it is not so "plain and simple" that without Perot Clinton doesn't win. The "Perot got Clinton elected" is nothing more than a scare tactic used by the GOP in order to keep people from voting from third-party candidates (much like the DNC blames Nader for 2000).

 

[GAVol]

You're discounting a little bit the dynamic of the well funded 2 on 1 that existed in 92. Perot knew he'd never win, but that wasn't his goal.

James Carville nailed it when he referred to the Perot campaign as the most expensive act of masturbation in the history of the world.

 

[therealUT]

You're discounting a little bit the dynamic of the well funded 2 on 1 that existed in 92. Perot knew he'd never win, but that wasn't his goal.

James Carville nailed it when he referred to the Perot campaign as the most expensive act of masturbation in the history of the world.

Unless you feel that 7 out of 10 Perot voters would have voted for Bush, had Perot not been in the race, then I just do not see that Perot was the deciding factor. However, that is a major claim to make (exit polls claim that Perot drew less than 40% of the vote away from Bush).

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

So what is considered a sucess for Gary Johnsons campaign? 1% of the total vote? What good will that do? To be honest, I wasnt really impressed with him the few times Ive seen him

 

[Gramps]

So what is considered a sucess for Gary Johnsons campaign? 1% of the total vote? What good will that do? To be honest, I wasnt really impressed with him the few times Ive seen him

I have to agree. i cannot support Obama nor Romney. Johnson will lucky if he gets 1or 2%.

These are the worse 2 candidates that I can remember running as their party nominee the same year.

 

[therealUT]

So what is considered a sucess for Gary Johnsons campaign? 1% of the total vote? What good will that do? To be honest, I wasnt really impressed with him the few times Ive seen him

Is the good in the outcome or in the act? The phrase, "The lesser of two evils" is very telling. Personally, I will choose neither evil.

 

[golfballs]

This is a better indicator of Obama's re-election chances than head to head polls:
Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval

 

[milohimself]

This is a better indicator of Obama's re-election chances than head to head polls:
Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval

The best indicator is polls in the 7-9 states that will matter in the national election.

 

[golfballs]

The best indicator is polls in the 7-9 states that will matter in the national election.

I'm not sure. I followed it closely in the last election and it seemed many were off. I think it's sample size. I recently read an article that did an analysis of pre-election polling and over the last several decades, and the best indicator at predicting the outcome was the job-approval rating.

 

[golfballs]

In the last fifty years, no party has retained the White House with a presidential job approval rating of less than 48 percent