Magox

It's quite impressive how the left is able to effectively mobilize in such a uniformed matter as quick as they do. You should see in the comments section, they are parrot the same damn thing, over and over and over. Arguing that women care more about access to contraceptive care more so than the economy. No, really. I'm serious.

To my understanding they are gonna drip the videos out. I will reserve objective judgement until I see it.

One can't help but internally hear bow-chika-wow-wow when you see a couple of those blondes together.

Holy Crap! I actually agree with you

What????? Sorry math doesn't agree with you. Now you're just being unreasonable.

Yeah, well those goofs votes counts as much as yours. Having said that, the vast majority of them are from California, so... yeah, he'll win that in a landslide. Back in 2008 http://www.gallup.com/poll/111115/democrats-election-enthusiasm-far-outweighs-republicans.aspx Democrats had a 71% enthusiasm excitement polling presently they have at 44% and even in a DailyKos poll that was conducted just a couple weeks ago its at 56% which we know wasn't conducted right. Don't take this wrong way JA, but I truly believe that you are one of those folks that believes that the public mood is accurately portrayed through the mainstream outlets. That's not the case. There is no exact way to find these things out, but polling is one of the better ways from my view to attempt to guage these things. And if you look at the polling data from the best polling companies, it's not the way you happen to believe it is. I strongly believe that things aren't quite how you perceive them to be.

Lets put it this way, for every little thing they look at Romney through the most high powered of microscopic lenses to point out his weaknesses, in the spirit of responsible, non-biased journalism you're damn straight they should of at LEAST mentioned it!! And I can tell you this JA, you said 100% is locked in?? Dude, I've got lots of hippy friends that I use to hang out with back in my days, and when I say lots I mean lots, that I'm still in contact with, specially now through FaceBook, and I can tell you that there have been lots of defections to Ron Paul and the kooks of the Green Party. They have move towards matters of causes such as Occupy, etc than political matters and there isn't this fawning over Obama like we saw in 2008, Obama does not have 100% of the base locked in, that I'm sure of.

There is no doubt that Obama is one hell of a campaigner, and significantly more gifted politically than Romney could ever be, so that will help him deflect away from his record and attempt to frame the campaign through the lens that they choose. In regards to the health care law, without a doubt, Romney isn't the best suited to attack Obama on this issue, but this is where his VP selection could help, plus it will be made abundantly clear that Romney does support repealing the health care law. Poll after poll supports this position, but Gallup had a poll recently that should give Conservatives something to think about. http://www.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx They polled what do you believe is important? 1) Economy 92% 2) Unemployment 82% 3) Federal Budget Deficit 79% 4) 2010 Health Care law 75% 5) Terrorism 72% 6) Taxes 71% you know what was way down on the list? The Obama "fairness" issue. Gap between rich and poor at 56% Now, I would be willing to bet you that for any news junkies, that follow the mainstream outlets, you wouldn't of believed that. You would of thought that the "fairness" issue is slightly behind the Federal budget Deficit. This tells you that alot of independents don't see this as an important issue. You could easily argue, substantively that what Americans find to be important to them gives Romney an advantage. I've always said that framing the issues will matter greatly, but Romney begins with the advantage, the advantage that in what Americans care about, Romney is on the better side of the argument. So it's a matter of execution.

In the cleveland area? Fat chance

This should be news.

I agree, and I'm beginning to wonder if he'll get all the white evangelical voters that normally go to conservatives. He'll get the vast majority of them, but he'll need every last one of them, and I hate to say it, but there is definitely religious bigotry that is out there, not just from the left but on the right as well. Having said that, I've been looking at polling data, specially the internals, looking at sampling data etc. and the polls that have the correct data show a neck and neck race between Obama and Romney. I'll give you an example, last week there was a NBC poll that showed that Obama has a 50% to 38% advantage in the state of Ohio. Sounds like a landslide right? Well, if you decided to delve into the internals as I like to do, it showed that out of the polling 50% out of those polled either identified themselves as Democrats or independents who leaned for Democrats, and 37% for Repubs or Independents who lean Repub. Ohio doesn't provide Voter registration details, so its up to the poll to determine what they believe is the correct sampling, now considering that Conservatives in Ohio won the only Senator seat race in 2010, won a net plus of 5 house seats, won the governors seat, the Lt Gov seat and won control of the state legislature, and two straight elections in 2000, 2004 for G.W Bush, you'd have to be either willfully dishonest in setting the demographical sampling for this poll, or just completely oblivious to reality. If the sampling were to have been even, you'd see it's a dead heat race. And if you look at polling data from the best three, Quinnipiac, Gallup and Rasmussen, the race is deadlocked. What I'm getting at is we have to remember who is reporting all the data that we read every day, any objective person understans that most of the media has a bias for Obama, for crying out loud, have you been reading Politico lately? What use to be semi barely to the left back in 2008,2009 and most of 2010 has gone unabashedly to the left and may as well be part of Obamas election campaign. There is a narrative that the media and left want to portray and that is that the president is beginning to open up a sizable lead and that Romney has gone to far to the right to win the middle and that there is no energy on the right. You would actually believe that if you only subscribed to normal media outlets, such as WAPO, Politico, NBC etc. But that doesn't paint an accurate picture, MIchigan turnout was way above normal and so was Ohio, yet that wasn't reported. Gallup just had a poll that came out and showed that Conservatives have a 9% advantage in Enthusiasm over Dems, and wait until they get focused when it becomes a 1 on 1 matchup. Also they showed that Mitt has a 10% advantage with non affiliated registered voters. I've always believed that Romney will be a better election candidate than a primary one, simply because his core is closer to the middle than that of an average right winger, and I personally find that appealing. I believe his economic message will be a big net plus, and if independent voters decide that the economy and the debt are the most important issues, and Romney continues to highlight Obamas abysmal record in these areas along with Romney's success, then he stands a good shot at winning. Four things though I see that could be potential roadblocks. The latino vote, if it stands as is, 70-14% Romney loses, no way to overcome that. Two mormon bigotry, if it is there in larger numbers than I had believed there would be, then that will depress Conservative and independent votes, which could cost him the election. Three, this election doesn't become a referendum on Obama's failures and focuses on how Romney is out of touch with the American voter, he's anti woman and only wants to protect his 1% buddies, then Romney loses. And lastly, as you pointed too, that this continues to be such a bloody primary for another couple months, and Romney continues to move akwardly to the right, alienating moderates and racking up negatives with independents, that it will be difficult to shed those unfavorables by election time. That's why the VP selection is critical, someone who can allay the fears of the first two causes of concerns that I listed. Well, thats my summary

It's somewhat impressive how he effectively paints the other side as "playing petty politics" with gasoline prices and Iran and that he is above the fray since he actually has real responsibilities as Commander in Chief. There is actually alot of truth to that. But what I find to be quite remarkably hypocritical is that he did the exact same thing when he was running his campaign in 07/08, and on the exact same subjects, gasoline and Iraq. I suppose he believes that we all have a severe case of amnesia and that we don't remember him replicating the same "petty politics" that his critics on the trail are practicing today, or maybe he calculates that the other members of his campaign staff, you know, the media, won't hold him accountable to the same standard he is with his opponents.

I just hope that policy makers won't be as rigid as your belief when it comes to this issue. My guess is that Romney wouldn't. There are two possible outcomes, one a alot rosier than the other. Either 1) Rubio or Martinez the gov out of New Mexico gets added to the ticket, and adopts a more inclusive tone, one that would attract more latinos come November. That poll that came out yesterday, that showed a 70% to 14% advantage for Obama, inside of that poll, approximately a third of the 70% said they would consider voting for Romney if he were to add a Latino to the ticket. Thats approximately 23%, you add that with the 14% that he has, and maybe another 40% of undecided Latinos which was 16%, then you reach above George Bush's latino voters of 08 of around 43-44%. That's almost a 30% net swing. Considering that many races could go neck and neck throughout the country that swing could very well make the difference. 2) Or no latino gets added to the ticket, Romney tries to shift to the middle during the general elections, but most latinos won't buy what he's selling and will come off as phony. If those numbers come below 20% of the total Latino vote during the election (McCain had 31%) then most likely Obama wins. Which virtually guarantees that during his presidency he makes a hard push to pass through the Dream Act, BUT UNDER HIS TERMS. a) it Passes and Obama becomes the president who actually achieved comprehensive immigration reform. He becomes a huge favorite of Latinos and secures the Latino vote for quite some time. (not a likely scenario) b) it doesn't pass, but Conservatives use inflammatory rhetoric and cite violence, destruction of property, drug smuggling as road blocks to passing this bill and insist on a Fence and "protect borders first" mantra. In which Latinos more then ever will continue to move massively towards Democrats. (the more likely scenario) What people don't understand is that the Latino voter is a good fit for Conservatives on a few key issues. Generally speaking they are socially conservative people and that right there is a strong base to build off of. Central and SouthAmerican Latinos are generally anti leftist, so thats another area that they could have in common. Conservatives are gonna have to move more towards the Latino voter either the more inclusive way or the painful one, which means more lost elections until they wake up to the fact that they have to adopt a new policy.

I heard Bibi's speech tonight, thought he made a pretty compelling case. I'd have to say if I were in their shoes I'd support the actions of the groundwork he's laying righting now, which is some sort of a strike aimed at paralyzing their capabiltities or at least stalling them. My guess is right now Obama is feeling pretty damn nervous at the moment. Seemed awfully likely to me that they are going to be doing this some time soon. I actually read an article just a few minutes ago where one of their news channels in Israel is "reporting" that Bibi told Obama that they have already decided to strike Iran within the next few weeks or months, unless "significant" progress was made and that their was a dispute about the "day after" consequences. Maybe there isn't much validity to the report, but I'll say this, after watching Bibi's speech, I'd say they're about ready. I mean, he did make a hell of a case, and if I were an Israeli, I'd completely be behind making sure that doesn't happen. I find it amusing how some people can opine from a great distance, outside of any real threat, and state "Why is Israel doing this? they should wait, Iran won't attack them". Maybe, maybe not, but just imagine how emboldened Iran would be to create other conflicts with a nuclear weapon. You don't think that they would use that leverage for dominance in the region. YOu'd have to be one naive puppy to believe they wouldn't. Then of course the idea of a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region in the world, yeah that's not scary at all. Not to mention the distinct possibility that there could be that chance that maybe Iran would be crazy enough to launch it if pushed enough. Unreal man, freaking unreal.

Couldn't care less about that fat piece of ****, all he does is rile up the right wingers, and is more of a divisive energy within the conservative movement. Having said that, just got done reading that link, and she indeed was a ringer, and pretty much was dishonest in parts of her congressional testimony.

Keep empowering conservatives to push these policies, and we'll forever end up being a progressive/democratic socialistic bankrupt state. YOu can take that to the bank.

I will say this, Romney's focus on the economy has been spectacularly myopic.

You see you don't understand, in Lybobs youtubed perfect world, he believes that the president can unilaterally take our capitalistic society and turn it into Sweden over night and tell all the zionists to !@#$ off and somehow all the jews would just magically either disappear or accept his vision without aaaaannnnyyy reprecrussions whatsoever. Welcome to Lybobs world

Trust me, he is, just that reality doesn't allow him to practice full blown socialism.

Well, you would have a point if it were to occur from time to time, but when one consistently doesn't have a "stand", well.... Then it's something else. Ummm, maybe wimpy may not be the word I'd use to describe it, not quite sure what word I'd use, but it definitely wouldn't be a flattering characterization.

You couldn't let it go could you?