US Elections 2012 Obama v Romney Official Thread

[anonymous-user]

jeff m2 said:

Are you paid ?

Shelters always ask for tinned goods.
What planet are you on.

From the Red Cross website;

Red Cross said:

unfortunately due to constraints the Red Cross does not accept or solicit individual items, collected food, used items or clothes must be repackaged, transports which impedes the valuable resources of money, time, and personnel. financial contributions allow the Red Cross to purchase exactly what’s needed for a disaster relief operation.

This was a cynical photo op by a cynical losing candidate using your people for political gain. I don't blame you for being angry Jeff, just be angry at the right people. If Romney had his way FEMA wouldn't exist and you'd all be in a much worse position.

[anonymous-user]

Wow, look at that huge crowd of Romney enthusiasts.

[anonymous-user]

jeff m2 said:

Mermaid said:

Stock market performance favours Obama

But the economy doesn't, market is at a solid 13, but it is being fuelled.
QE 3 is different to 1 & 2 in that it is continuous. every month, not single hits like one and two.
That's 40 B a month into MBSs.

Ignore share prices if you want. Corporate PROFITS are at a record level.

If you look at all the indicators, icluding consumer spending on luxury goods, the economy is recovering.

[anonymous-user]

jeff m2 said:

unrepentant said:

jeff m2 said:

Are you paid ?

Shelters always ask for tinned goods.
What planet are you on.

From the Red Cross website;

Red Cross said:

unfortunately due to constraints the Red Cross does not accept or solicit individual items, collected food, used items or clothes must be repackaged, transports which impedes the valuable resources of money, time, and personnel. financial contributions allow the Red Cross to purchase exactly what’s needed for a disaster relief operation.

You conveniently ommited the blood bit, no matter.
The red cross provides cots and borrows buildings.
Do you mean you have never donated tinned goods to a shelter or seen pleas for tinned good for those in need or distress.

What sort of heartless place do you live in?
Living in a GOP town is not a valid reply

They asked for blood too. I was making the principle point that they specifically asked for people to donate cash not food.

We have regular food drives through Gleaners. I always chip in what I can afford, a few cans of cheap broth or whatever. I'm sure you donate your left over foie gras and beluga.

[anonymous-user]

jeff m2 said:

Hard to ignore the market..... it will be boost for Obarma because 13,000 is easy to understand whereas the frantic buying of MBSs is not.
How many voters think a fiscal cliff is something you don't jump off

Corp profits are up, better to take them now than gamble on next years rates.
Ditto cap gains. Why gamble, set a new cost basis and don't rely on voters when it comes to do what is best for the economy.

Slight recent improvement in spending but not enough to boost hiring. Job numbers lag the economy by two years. Too little too late.

I think overall this will help Obama, it shouldn't but it will. I find it sad.

From where I sit all the indicators are good, including unemployment. It's still too high but it's moving in the right direction. Consumer spending is rising - you want an Audi A7 or a new Range Rover? Get your hand in your pocket, hand over a big deposit at MSRP and be prepared to wait a few months.

So tell me, it's Jan 2009 and President Jeff has just landed in the White House. The outgoing bloke has left you with an economy that is losing 800,000 jobs a month, a defecit of $1.3 trillion, $8 trillion of debt already projected for the next decade, 2 costly unbudgeted wars in full swing, a stock market in freefall and you are on the brink of the next great depression.

What are you going to do about it?

(I haven't even mentioned that you have 47 million citizens with no health coverage, your international reputation as a nation is at a pretty low ebb, you have serious racial and gender inequalities etc..)

[anonymous-user]

longblackcoat said:

The polls taken in the last few days show movement towards Obama. The ABC News/Washington Post poll of the 30th has the two candidates tied on a national level (49% each) which would almost certainly mean an electoral college win for the Democrats, given the concentrations in certain states. Given the momentum that Obama has gained (or that Romney has lost) in the last few days, I'd be surprised if he doesn't get an overall majority now, something I would not have predicted a week ago.

If anyone is seriously confident of a Romney victory, see if you can work up an electoral college number for him. It's not hard to do, just do as I did and tot it up, state by state. I tried it, and couldn't see how Romney could get there, so long as there was no collapse in the Obama vote. Given that so such collapse has happened, nor that it looks likely, I reiterate my call of 340+ for the Democrats.

This is in no way an endorsement for the Democratic Party. Barack Obama has not approved this message. Your home may be at risk if you do not keep up repayments. Poll numbers may well go down as well as up

Good analysis.

A quick look at the bookies tells you that a Romney victory is very unlikely. I'd be very happy with 340, I still think 284 - 309 is the most likely outcome.

[anonymous-user]

Art0ir said:

unrepentant said:

Corporate PROFITS are at a record level.

That does nothing for the economy if the employees wages don't match them. Zero.

I agree. Tell that to the Romney supporting CEO's that have been taking record pay increases for themselves while telling their employees that wage increases are off the table.

[anonymous-user]

jeff m2 said:

unrepentant said:

jeff m2 said:

Hard to ignore the market..... it will be boost for Obarma because 13,000 is easy to understand whereas the frantic buying of MBSs is not.
How many voters think a fiscal cliff is something you don't jump off

Corp profits are up, better to take them now than gamble on next years rates.
Ditto cap gains. Why gamble, set a new cost basis and don't rely on voters when it comes to do what is best for the economy.

Slight recent improvement in spending but not enough to boost hiring. Job numbers lag the economy by two years. Too little too late.

I think overall this will help Obama, it shouldn't but it will. I find it sad.

From where I sit all the indicators are good, including unemployment. It's still too high but it's moving in the right direction. Consumer spending is rising - you want an Audi A7 or a new Range Rover? Get your hand in your pocket, hand over a big deposit at MSRP and be prepared to wait a few months.

So tell me, it's Jan 2009 and President Jeff has just landed in the White House. The outgoing bloke has left you with an economy that is losing 800,000 jobs a month, a defecit of $1.3 trillion, $8 trillion of debt already projected for the next decade, 2 costly unbudgeted wars in full swing, a stock market in freefall and you are on the brink of the next great depression.

What are you going to do about it?

We don't have the bandwidth for a reply to that.
But basically I would accept that the task infront of me was beyond my smarts, step aside and let a better person run for President. Something I believe Obama should have done.

Sorry Jeff, that's the typical answer. "The economy was fked, we have no clue what we would have done but we don't like what he did".

Obama has done a good job in very difficult circumstances and had McCain prevailed in 08 and followed the policies of cost slashing and program elimination we would truly be screwed now.

[anonymous-user]

longblackcoat said:

unrepentant said:

Sorry Jeff, that's the typical answer. "The economy was fked, we have no clue what we would have done but we don't like what he did".

Obama has done a good job in very difficult circumstances and had McCain prevailed in 08 and followed the policies of cost slashing and program elimination we would truly be screwed now.

That said, I'd far prefer McCain to Romney. Not that I'd choose either, you understand, but I have a great deal more respect for John McCain, a decent man whose hand I could shake even if I opposed his position.

McCain is a classic case of what is wrong with the republican party. Take a decent guy, a war hero to boot, with moderate views and a well earned reputation for being a concilliator who works across the aisle in the interests of America, not some narrowly defined group of Americans. He is respected by all sides and even has friends on the democratic benches. Now that guy wants to represent the republicans in a presidential election. So he'll run on his record of concillatory cross party working and moderate views? Hell he won't! He wants to get the nomination and he has no chance as a moderate. So he tacks to the right, in the end so far to the right that he picks a complete wacko conservative to run with him.

I can pinpoint the exact moment when McCain finally said to hell with this nonsense. It was when that woman, at a town hall in Minnesota, told him that she couldn't vote for Obama because he was an "Arab". You could see by the exasperation and disgust in McCain's face that he'd had enough. He took the microphone back and told the woman that she was wrong, that Obama was a decent family man, citizen, that he just happened to have disagreements with on fundamental issues. The campaign had got away from him, it was no longer his, it had been hijacked by the wackos, the election was 2 weeks hence but it was over.

[anonymous-user]

CommanderJameson said:

This picture won't do Obama any harm at all:

Nope. Plenty of them too.

For the first time in weeks the RCP average has Obama ahead. More importantly new polls show his lead growing rapidly in key battleground states like Wisconsin, Nevada, New Hampshire and Iowa. It's little wonder, on the one hand you have a president being like and looking like a commander in chief and on the other you have a pretender faking photo ops and putting out false ads claiming that one of America's most iconic brands is packing up and leaving for China. This choice should be an easy one for most people.

[anonymous-user]

Former republican and now much admired independent Mayor of New York Michael Bloomberg just endorsed President Obama.

[anonymous-user]

davepoth said:

unrepentant said:

Former republican and now much admired independent Mayor of New York Michael Bloomberg just endorsed President Obama.

He was a Democrat to start with though.

He was elected as a republican though. Another billionaire who has said up yours to Romney.

[anonymous-user]

vonuber said:

Guam said:

And I have A degree And PostGrad in Marketing and Statistics and was a memmber of the Royal Chartered institute of Marketing for many years <until I found it of no furthrt use to me>.

You have my pity.

Or as he'd say yer Herf mu pithy.

[anonymous-user]

This could get very very interesting. Too late for the election but very embarrassing for Willard as he continues the Jeep lies.

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/11/01/uaw-calls-for-i...

[anonymous-user]

davepoth said:

Captain Cadillac said:

This is pretty much where it's been for some time now.

Several models that I've seen bandied about show an almost certain win for Romney on the popular vote but a very close race in the electoral vote.

Which is yet another reason why the electoral college needs to go. I'll be the first to admit that Bush had no reason being elected in 2000. I voted for him and was happy for him to win, HOWEVER, regardless of Florida's result he lost the popular vote by half a million votes.

IMNSHO he therefore did not deserve to be president.

What if Romney wins the popular vote by millions yet loses the election by electoral votes?

It's a bad show all round when someone wins without the majority of the popular vote, regardless of who the winner/loser is.

Is there any data on voter turnout by state? I guess it's lower in the states like Texas and California where the result is "never in doubt"; having a purely popular vote might skew that.

No system is perfect but at least with the electoral college regional differences are accounted for. When did the government of the UK ever win the popular vote? Has it happened in living memory? As CC said, Bush didn't win the popular vote (he didn't win the EC either, Florida was a total fix but that's another story) so it's a bit rich for republicans to bleat if Obama wins without it this time. I still think he'll win both handily. I doubt there will be any appetite for change in the GOP anyway, with demographic changes in the USA this was probably their last chance to win the popular vote as the parties currently stand.

[anonymous-user]

The Economist has endorsed Obama again, as they did in 08.

So that's Bloomberg and The Economist in one day. And Forbes endorsed Rick Perry against Romney.

If Romney can't get the support of these people who is supporting him? It can't all be white people over 65. Can it?

[anonymous-user]

London424 said:

I saw that Bloomberg has backed Obama mainly over his policies on guess what...Global Warming! Couldn't make it up.

Bloomberg cares about the environment and is concerned about GW. What's wrong with that? The republican party rejects science in every facet of life so it's understandable that he struggles to find common ground with them. Hell, the majority of them don't even believe in evolution!

[anonymous-user]

Here's Romney on FEMA. Flippety flop!;

Romney on FEMA 6/13/11 said:

Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that's the right direction. And if you can go even further and send it to the private sector, that's even better.

Romney on FEMA 10/13/12 said:

I believe that FEMA plays a key role in working with state and localities to prepare for and respond to natural disasters. As president I will ensure that FEMA has the funding it needs to fulfill it's mission.

It's weathervane Mitt again! Or more likely it's "Panic! I'm losing bad and the president and Chris Christie both look 500 times more presidential than I do. So let's say change another policy so it looks like I agree with them" Mitt.

A candidate utterly without backbone or principles, Mitt is everyman, whatever your view, wait a few days and Mitt will agree with you. Not that it matters, it's not like he believes any of the crap he spouts in public. Now the 47% - that he believes...

[anonymous-user]

Art0ir said:

Outstanding

In fairness there's not much that you can say about Romney that's positive. 3% sounds a bit high.

[anonymous-user]

Even Rasmussen is no longer trying to pretend that Romney has a lead..........

The latest 6 polls are ;

Tie
Obama +1
Tie
Obama +1
Obama +5
Tie

It's a red free zone.

Meanwhile Obama moves further ahead in New Hampshire and is winning 9 of 12 swing states with Virginia tied.

A new poll in red Indiana shows Joe Donnelly beating odious creep Richard Mourdock by 11 points in what was one of the GOP's safest senate seats. With Brown losing badly in Mass and idiot Aiken being trounced in Missouri it looks like the senate is staying blue.

We're 5 days from