There are three reasons, at least, why Mitt Romney has little, if any chance, of beating President Obama. First, among Latinos, it’s 70% Obama, 14% Romney. Traditionally, Republican presidential hopefuls had to poll better than 35% among Latinos. Romney’s position with Latinos can only get worse as the word gets out. Second, Romney and Republicans are not going to get the required share of the urban vote (Size Matters).
Finally, exhibit 1 of the devastating media campaign the Democrats will mount connecting the primary fealty to wacko ideas and the presidential bid. This is just as nice as it can be and Romney looks simply awful.
It’s about who will be motivated to vote “anyone but Obama”. Romney has been pre-selected and funded as a “tolerable” candidate to oust Obama, tolerable (barely) to right wingers, and very tolerable to The Money Party who knows he will do exactly what Obama is doing now, which is what Bush was told to do and did.
So all it boils down to, is how many Dems will be motivated to get to the polls for Obama, versus how many coalesced GOP/independent “anyone but Obama” movement minions show up.
It really has not much to do with Romney or anything anyone can say about him. It’s all been said before and is known. None of it matters because it all has been “tolerable”.
It really has not much to do with Obama or anything he can say or do, either. The “anyone but Obama” movement doesn’t care what he says, because they have made up their minds. They also (rightly) know that Obama says whatever he thinks will get him votes. So does Romney. They know that.
today’s Romney mess-age
Romney’s big day marred by Etch A Sketch remark
Eric Fehrnstrom, Romney’s senior campaign adviser, was asked in a CNN interview Wednesday morning whether the former Massachusetts governor had been forced to adopt conservative positions in the rugged race that could hurt his standing with moderates in November’s general election.
“I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes,” Fehrnstrom responded. “It’s almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up, and we start all over again.”
The origin of the universe has not as yet been shown to be a conspiracy theory
was really about Obama, and how much was anti-Bush fury hangover?
The origin of the universe has not as yet been shown to be a conspiracy theory
considering that Obama basically carried on the Bush legacy loyally.
My take is that what the candidates say doesn’t mean much; it’s all for conmanship. That includes “hope and change” or hope and con, and it includes “real conservatism” as in conning right wingers. Then, get in office and continue doing what a servant of the money party does.
Central to Santorum’s strategy are county and state conventions, which select delegates to the convention in caucus states. Santorum’s campaign asserts that they will outperform their caucus-night delegate shares because convention-goers are by-and-large more conservative than the average Republican voter
so screw the average voter…. outside the beltway
Always keep an open mind and a compassionate heart. ~ Phil Jackson
I agree, there isn’t much difference between them unless your are black or Latino. Those voters know what Romney is about, namely following the racist garbage flowing from his party.
Look for low turnout, Obama by a couple of million or more. They he tanks, about 3 month into it, really bad. More opportunity costs for the rest of us and the world. Although we don’t need to hold our head low. The twerp horror show Sarkozy raised a false flag that may put him back in office.
The Money Party RSS
Obama was the Rorschach. We NEVER get a real choice or a real debate. Why start now?
The Money Party RSS
Some really mean dude with a cattle prod. This is truly the only country where anybody can grow up to be president, even a guy who hears the devil talk.
The Money Party RSS
Whatever their faults, Obama and the Democrats are not pushing bat-shit crazy woman-hating legislation in statehouses all across the country.
–
-Geoduck
Policy wise, there’s no significant difference between what Obama will do and what Romney would do. The foreign policy vis-a-vis the dead-on, certain unstoppable war coming with Iran will be the same. Coal and oil will rule energy policy. Nothing will be done to slow global warming, and indeed it will accelerate, as I have said before FASTER than “worst case scenarios” predict.
In other words, our civilization will suffer some form of collapse, and we will live through the beginning of it. The kids born after 2000 will live through the brunt of it. There may be a new age of peace and prosperity, but I say not until at least 2050 or after.
It won’t be a total collapse, but it will be a catastrophic collapse, including an “extinction event” comparable to major extinctions in the Earth’s past (I’m thinking around 25% or more of species).
Population will stabilize because death rates will dramatically increase as people die of starvation, disease, and become collateral damage of the wars that will break out over water, over food, and over the control of precious resources.
The age of oil will end when we just can’t get any more of it out of the ground or ocean floors, not before. The age of coal will end when it becomes impossible to supply more than a fraction of our energy needs with it, not before.
You’ll see massive migrations away from the huge coastal cities of today. The trend will be towards more population centers of smaller masses, and back towards more localized support systems. The huge supermarket full of subsidized, out-of-season processed foods will give way to more localized markets.
It will be hard, and we will all have to make it on a far – FAR – less diversified planet in terms of it’s wildlife and ecosystems. Large swaths of the planet will simply be uninhabitable because they are too hot or too dry, or racked by too-intense storm systems on a regular basis.
But humans will persist, and even thrive again.
What exactly that will look like, I have no idea. How much we retain of the hard lessons we are about to learn regarding our planetary stewardship and our treatment of of other human beings remains to be seen.
I seeing that three to four billion people will survive the collapse, and get another day to rebuild, another chance to get it right. A lot of us won’t get it right then either, but that’s the way of evolution.
Will we be as successful as the dinosaurs – will we rule the planet for over 100 million years?
So far we are just over 1/10th of the way through our first million years.
That makes us 1/1000th as successful as the dinosaurs.
We can do better than that, I would hope.
In those terms, it doesn’t matter whether Romney or Obama is the next US president. That’s why I don’t have much energy about it.
There’s a slathering of focus-group language and lots of pre-tested slogans like “Hope and Change”, but all Obama’s policy talk was clearly conservative. Obama kept saying that he wanted to be like Reagan. From the beginning he scolded liberals for not being nicer to the religious — and meant the “God cares only about your sex life” troops rather than returning to the “Feed the hungry” social justice gospel. He was suggesting before the election that he wanted to cut Social Security. The only areas where Obama consistently lied like a rug was on civil liberties and government transparency.
During the campaign, when I pointed out the incredibly conservative nature of his words, many of my liberal friends said, like you, “what he says ‘doesn’t mean much’. He says what he has to say to get elected. Once he’s elected he’ll be what we want.”
Obama showed what he would do by his history of being a value-less politician. I clearly saw that his promises of hope and change were conmanship, when he fist started running. His history in Chicago was consistent with that. You have cherry picked some things he said he would do, not his main promises of hope and change, which he never intended to keep. By doing so, you can pretend that “what he says means much”. I NEVER EVER said or thought that once he was elected he would do what he conningly promised, or what “we want.” You have twisted my words. The liberals you quote chose to be conned by his hope and change lies. Yes, it was clear that he would continue conservative Bush administration policies, but not because he talked about them very much. Most were surprised to the extent to which he “caved” on all of them.
I agree with most of that, although I think you are a bit too optimistic. Foreign policy is the key to success of the nation. As long as it’s driven by the National Security State profit imperative, the rest of us will suffer directly and through all the opportunities lost to address real interests of humans and other sentient species (which I suppose includes flora and fauna).
I see a rapid, positive turnaround through the serendipitous discovery of a radically cheap and efficient energy source. The Money Party will be in such shock that the energy driven foreign policy with terra ismo as a justification will simply collapse. We will see a blooming of imagination, shared wealth, and engineering solutions. There will be world peace and then the comet will hit.
No one will know we were here, ever.
The Money Party RSS
