Magox

Damn those Chinese and their "unchecked" communist policies.

Mitt will be a better General election campaigner than a primary one. In the primaries he has to pander to his base, whereas in the general election, he will get to talk more about topics that are in his comfort zone which is the economy and the deficit. He is closer to be a true independent than an ideological conservative.

I don't believe so, there is a possibility that they could demagogue Ryan's plan so much that they could scare away some voters,but there are some indications that wouldn't be the case. One of them is that Ryans favorability ratings are throught the roof including with Seniors in his home state. Two, the plan he has introduced doesn't touch anyone on Medicare's plan unless they are the age of 53 or less. And last but not least, Ryan is about as intelligent as they come, he understands policies at an exceptionaly high level, he knows his **** and he is a phenomenal communicator. He is the type of guy that independents would love, and he would be able to communicate conservative causes much more effectively than Romney ever could without sounding like your typical partisan Republican. I'm not saying that choosing Ryan comes without risk, because without a doubt the DNC would attack Ryan's medicare plan. Having said that, he is one of the few men that have the balls to actually attempt to address our Medicare problems, where was the president on this issue? That will be a contrast that could work to their favor, while Obama created a defict commission that came out with their solutions, what did the president do about it? Nothing. Ryan layed out his budget and attemp to solve Medicare and for that without a doubt he will pick up independents that care about the deficit and that have an interest at solving our entitlement issues.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72531.html#ixzz1li8pI9nT

You and I see him as a disaster, put ideological purists see things from a different lens. You should know that. Having said that, Romney is not your ideal conservative, by almost any means, from a personal perspective, I don't give a **** about this, I want someone who is going to be more fiscally responsible than Obama, I want someone who is going to improve the economy more so than Obama, and that's pretty much what it boils down to. Independents by in large aren't ideologically driven, so the election is going to be about a few different things 1) which candidate wins the message war Obama's message: a) I care about the middle class more and Romney is out of touch b) I will fight against income inequality, Romney wants to protect the rich Mitt's message: a) I can fix this economy,Obama doesn't understand economics and the proof is in the pudding. b) Obama believes in overreaching government with centralized power, crony capitalism and is your typical tax and spend liberal. c) Obama hasn't lived up to his promises. Wait till the super pacs really begin hammering Obama on Solyndra, Keystone, the healthcare bill, Catholic contraceptive scandal (which btw is now beginning to pick up lots of steam) and failed promises, you will see the presidents negative ratings rise. Karl Rove is most likely going to raise approximately $200 Million for this election cycle and let's face it, the guy is a political genius and the roll he has now as fundraiser and strategist for the largest super pac in the universe fits him perfectly, look at his results. Got Bush elected twice and look at the 2010 results. The guy is gonna effectively hammer away at the president, and he will do it in the districts that matter that can make the difference, that you can count on. 2) The economy, well this could go either way, if the economy improves then so do the presidents chances of getting elected, if the economy begins to sputter again, then Romney's Mr. "I can fix it" message gets a whole lot stronger. 3) Who Romney's VP selection is. He needs someone that can fire up the base, this is going to be a critical selection. He has to strike the right balance, he has to get someone who gins up the ideologues, while not alienating independents. There are two people that I can think of right now, that could deliver, and that is Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio. Many variables that will change between now and the elections. But those are the three main issues I see affecting this upcoming elections.

The fact is this all there is, Obama or Romney. The question from my perspective is; Who can help improve the economy more, Obama or Romney? From your perspective, who do you think can get the job done more effectively? My first choice btw was Mitch Daniels, and yeah I like competence, what can I say? That's just me.

Obama is up now, perceptions of economy is improving, bloody battle in the GOP and all the negative campaigning is having it's toll on their unfavorability ratings, fractured GOP base haven't even come close to coalescing around any candidate yet, media is beginning to kick right into leftist campaign mode and a series of unforced errors on Romney's behalf is playing perfectly right into the caricature they are painting him as. If election were held today, Romney would most likely lose. Having said that, we are a long ways out from the election, many unknown variables will play a factor, the economy could improve or it may do what it has the last two years which is start off the year with decent employment numbers only to see it drop back off again. We will without a doubt see the COnservative base coalesce much more so than now, but to what extent? depends on how fired up the base is to see Obama defeated and who Romney's VP selection will be. As of right now, they aren't fired up AT ALL during this Primary process, which means that Romney is gonna need a knockout selection as his VP choice. Rubio would do it, but he has stated more than a few times that he wouldn't accept, if not him, Paul Ryan is about the only other guy I can think of that could fire up the base, without alienating independents.

Ok, so after reading the BLS a little more, it was a technical decrease of 1.2M people from the workforce because of the Census reports of increased population. So it would be an intellectually dishonest argument to make to attempt to hammer away the claim of 1.2 Million people dropping out of the workforce in a single month. Having said that, the cumulative total of 1.2 Million people of either not entering or dropping out of the work force on top of the recognized amount since the Census would be accurate. So from a singular isolated POV, the report was a good one, from the perspective of the amount of total discouraged people that have dropped out of the workforce over the past 4 years should be a story that gets covered. Considering its an election year, I doubt it.

Guess what category you and Pasta Joe fall in? Yep, the 35% crowd otherwise known as the "Obama kool-aid drinking lemmings" Yipeee for 8.3% unemployment

There are so many variables that could alter the outcome of the elections, who Romney's VP selection is, campaign strength, verbal gaffes, who's election demonization machine works more effectively and last but not least the economy. If the perception of the economy strengthens from where it it, it lessens Romney's chances at winning, if the economy sputters back to what we saw last year, it increases his odds of winning, if the economy falls back to near recession like it has two since the recession then Romney is all but guaranteed a victory. I would say that is the most important variable, the economy.

AND that in every single recession since the Great Depression, this has been the most anemic "recovery" we'd seen.

That's right, I suppose that's why even a leftwing (*^*&%^$^#like E.J Dionne even characterized Obamas decision of rustbelt Democratic Catholics "throwing them under the bus" But you're such a partisan moron you can't see the decision because you lack objectivity. Also, the rest of the country doesn't agree with what Obama has been doing as "progress"

Coming from an ignorant little twat like you, it's all good

Hold on a second, you provide a link quoting "Romney is going to lose to Obama in a landslide" and then I go on to read the RPA polls in the link YOU provided that shows Obama up a whole 1.8% which is within the statistical margin of error. That's a "landslide" ? JA you're a riot dude. Here let me help you out, you see, elections are decided in the battleground states, battleground states are these states where they are seen as tossups, usually the one who wins the "battleground" states wins the election. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-01-27/swing-states-poll/52871890/1 Yep "landslide"

It's not lying dipshit, thats just how the system works, when people lose hope and give up looking for work, they don't get counted into the unemployment rate. It's in the labor statistic reports. But you go ahead and celebrate while 1.2M people this past month lost hope and gave up looking for work. Yippeeee 8.3% unemployment, the number (even though it's still a ****ty number), that's what counts!

It was... 1.2M people dropped out of the work force... But yippeee 8.3% unemployment

Excellent!

Santelli has always been a truth teller. One of the very few....

Dude, you're ruining my buzz...

At first glance, I was a bit surprised that the NY Times would cover such a story, but as I delved further into it, I quickly realized it was a "journalistic" piece meant to express outrage over how much Mitt pays in taxes. Yep, journalism is dead.

Everywhere...

First off I don't believe Ron Paul would accept. Maybe a few followers would get on the Romney train, but I know plenty of Paul Supporters and I can tell that the ones I know that support him, they are so far to the left that they have gone full circle and somehow in a quasi dimensional world have reached Pauls inner right side. These guys won't support Romney, they like Paul because he's genuine and because he speaks about individual liberty (even though they really don't know what Paul means by that, but it sounds cool), and that he has isolationist foreign policy view that they dig. Having said that, Paul has got all sorts of supporters,but these that are my friends, won't support ROmney.

Is Dead

It's truly amazing how this point hasn't been driven home or even mildly reported with any sort of emphasis from ANY of the news outlets. It's amazing. Shouldn't a true journalist want to find the truth? Shouldn't they want to share that with their viewers? Think about it, you have an unemployment rate that is dropping on paper, but in reality, there are so many people that feel hopeless about their ability to find jobs, that they all together give up on that possibility and therefore are not considered in that phony unemployment rate. Never would have I of believed that there would be that many hopeless people out there. 1.2 Million gave up looking for a job in ONE month. This is the first time I have heard that reported. That is what should of gotten the headlines, but unfortunately, journalists ignored this fact. The reality is that the people of this country feel more hopeless than they have felt since the great depression. But hip hip hooooray the unemployment rate is 8.3%

Ummm, no. You are confused, what you are referring to is when they score legislation and the effects it will have. When they score pieces of legislation, that is based on data that they receive from members of congress. When the CBO forecasts the national annual deficit and its further out years, that is based on current policy. When the CBO forecast GDP growth and unemployment figures, that is based on macro economic data. Let me tell you whats happened here, you saw a right wing link, you jumped the gun, and you automatically dismissed it without reading the meat of the CBOreport. Now, you are attempting to justify your error and rather than just admitting that you made a mistake you are digging a deeper hole and looking more and more foolish with every response you post. The fact that you said is astonishingly ignorant. Really??? What are you questioning? Their motives? How they derived their conclusion? What? You want to compare your macroeconomic data along side theirs and compare data? Maybe you and your team will come up with a more appropriate and logical set of data points and conclusions over the vast CBO macroeconomic team.