Romney is in the driver's seat.

[Gramps]

Just checked the intrade numbers. I thought they would have more movement tis morning with Romney dominating last night.

Obama: 66.1% change: -0.08

Romney 33.5% change: +0.01

 

[Gramps]

Ryan will make Biden look like the imbacile he is.

I'm not sure about that that.

Biden has been around a long time. He has battled some of the very best politicians over the years and won. I do not think he will be the push over many believe he will be.

BTW, I am not supporting Obama/Biden.

 

[2ironVol]

I'm not sure about that that.

Biden has been around a long time. He has battled some of the very best politicians over the years and won. I do not think he will be the push over many believe he will be.

BTW, I am not supporting Obama/Biden.

I agree. Those thinking Ryan is going hammer Biden are setting themselves up for a letdown. It's more likely that Biden will hold his own

 

[PaulieWalnuts]

I agree. Those thinking Ryan is going hammer Biden are setting themselves up for a letdown. It's more likely that Biden will hold his own

I don't know why people underestimate Biden in debates. Foolish.

 

[PaulieWalnuts]

ElectoralVote

 

[BigPapaVol]

I'm not sure about that that.

Biden has been around a long time. He has battled some of the very best politicians over the years and won. I do not think he will be the push over many believe he will be.

BTW, I am not supporting Obama/Biden.

who on earth has biden faced down? He's an old, drunk union panderer and free money vote buyer. What does that have to do with thinking?

 

[cd12]

Fire Hart....Replace with Dooley...two birds one stone.

 

[DC_Vol]

I don't know why people underestimate Biden in debates. Foolish.

It could have something to do with Biden speaking into a microphone. Everytime he does he says something stupid.

So I think most people have noticed this and are assuming there will be a microphone at the VP debate. Just a thought.

 

[Chattaben]

IIRC, Bush II got destroyed by Kerry in the first debate. He said "Its hard. Its hard work" about 1000 times and looked like a fool. The 2004 race tightened up after that but we all know how it finished. I would say Mitt has some momentum but not necessarily a lead now. He still has ground to make up.

The next debate is a town hall with both domestic and foreign policy on the agenda. The final one is all foreign policy with the same format as last night...which could be real interesting for both candidates. Obama has just as many accomplishments (OSL, boatloads of terrorist leaders killed by drones, Iraq withdrawal, missile treaty with Russia, Libya liberated, trade deals, etc) as he does faults (Libya embassy, Syria, Afghanistan not so great, assassinating an American terrorist, Iran, Gitmo).

 

[PKT_VOL]

Don't know much about Johnson and not a whole lot about Daniels. I remember being intrigued by Daniels when he came on the scene...there were some big issues I didn't agree with him on, but that's neither here nor there.

I love some of Ron Paul's ideas, but I can't sign on to his foreign policy. It would endanger our country. His past is also glossed over by his supporters. I'm not sure he's playing with a full deck upstairs, but I will reiterate the obvious...that's just my opinion.

Christie is a joke. His policies and views are inconsistent. I wouldn't trust him watching over my mother. The man just loves the camera. I don't see how you can like Paul and Johnson (based on the limited knowledge I have of Johnson) and like Christie.

There's something to be said for being 100% yourself, but if 100% of someone's views are contrary to your own, but they stand strong for them, I can't support that.

1) As a voter in the election, you owe it to the country to get acquainted with Johnson. He is on the ballot in 47 states. You probably won't vote for him but you should at least understand what he represents so you can adequately dismiss them.

2) I am a fan of Christie for his cantor and the fact that he has the balls to take on problems that nobody else wants. He is not really a policy guy in my opinion.

3) Are you sure you meant to word the bolded part the way you did? I might not agree with another person but I can respect someone's consistency and resolve. I cannot respect someone that sells out for political gain.

Technically, Reagan was more than 20+ years ago, but I see your point. To contrast against Romney, the exact same issues were brought up time and time for Reagan. Remember he was a Democrat before running as an R. Reagan was defined by his time in office: his belief in American exceptionalism and the Cold War. Reagan was a very good communicator and a strong leader. His time in office was his legacy and not his shifting views prior to election.

I agree mostly with this. I will say that I normally reject American exceptionalism. However, during the Cold War, I feel American exceptionalism meant something inherently different (in a positive manner) than it does today. I guess that is just my perspective.

I feel like I knew what Obama was about before he ever got elected president. His books were out there for everyone. He may present himself different to a particular audience, but he is 100% Obama. I don't like that about him.

Not sure what you mean in the last two lines.

Romney is not my perfect candidate. There are many things I disagree with his past record, but to take a stand and vote third party is ridiculous.

Not as ridiculous as continually feeding the two headed monster expecting a different result. That is the classic definition of insanity.

That's because they offer very contrasting positions on the future of the country. A third party vote might feel good on principle, but it's a wasted vote. Pick the guy who you agree with most or just leave your ballot blank.

People made the same argument with Perot. I wonder if they still feel so proud of themselves.

I would hope so. They voted for who they thought was the best candidate (theoretically at least). If Romney were to lose, would you regret voting for him? That is essentially what you are saying.

I'm not against a third party. In fact, I think if Romney loses a third party will become a big point of discussion. But you can't effectively push a third party in a national election. It has to start on the local level first.

I have no doubt. I am actually (in a way) rooting for Obama for that specific purpose. Honestly, Johnson supporters can't lose.

If Johnson gets a good amount of the vote, our cause is furthered.

If Romney wins, we stop Obama from destroying our country any worse than he already has (given that his is a proven commodity and Romney isn't).

If Obama wins, there will almost certainly be a split in the GOP and possibly a split in the Democratic party towards a Libertarian cause.