A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Do you mean 2008?
- Status
I
iloveangels
Guest
Corrected. Thanks. Yes, most of the MSM is using a 2008 mix, not 2004. They’re trying to claim that the turnout will be like it was for Obama the first time, and it’s not going to be.
Many people have shifted party registration, many independents are leaning right, voter rolls have been cleaned up in many states, voter ID laws have been passed in many states, we’ve had a TERRIBLE 4 years, and the general Democrat turnout will be lower.
L
Luigi_Daniele
Guest
And remember: even Rasmussen is using a 2004/2008 blend. He probably should be using a 2004/2010 blend, or just 2010.
I
iloveangels
Guest
Yes, my feeling on the ground right now is that it will be someplace between 2004/2008 and 2004/2010. I wish it were like 2010. We’ll see.
L
Luigi_Daniele
Guest
The Tea Party has been waiting for 2 years to vote against this guy. Dem registration is way down. Republicans and Independents are up (former Reagan Democrats?)
S
Semper_Zelare
Guest
To play devil’s advocate though… you have no reason to vote FOR Romney. All you are doing is voting against Obama.
And that’s all the Romney people every say on this forum. All they do is give reasons to not vote for Obama. Well, I’m not voting for Obama, I’m voting for Virgil Goode. What are some reasons to vote FOR Romney?
And I don’t care about this on a personal level. When you extrapolate that nationally, there’s just no way Romney’s going to win. All of the people that would be activists aren’t actively campaigning for Romney right now. They’re not excited about him. They’ve settled on him because “he can win”.
Now Mitt Romney’s campaign is reduced to “I’m the Republican that can win”, and “Obama is evil”. If that’s the message that his supporters give time and time and time again (which clearly is, those are the only points I EVER see about Romney)… then I’m going to be a realist and say that sorry folks… if you think that’s going to convince the independents… think again. It ain’t gonna happen.
And I’d prefer Romney to win. But he’s just not going to if his supporters don’t have reasons to vote for him
Luigi Danielle:
The Tea Party (of which I am a member) should’ve influenced the nomination. It’s unbelievable to me that we had the Tea Party and even then couldn’t nominate a conservative. We deserved Newt Gingrich. We deserved Rick Santorum. If only all the conservatives had dropped out except for one, so that the anti-Romney vote would consolidate (which was the majority). The majority of the GOP was anti-Romney.
And now I’m supposed to get behind him just because he’s our nominee? No, that’s not how it works. I voted for Rick Santorum in the primary. Now I’m voting for Virgil Goode… his views are MUCH closer to Santorums than are Romney’s.
L
Luigi_Daniele
Guest
There is no one on this board, I daresay, who is more conservative than me
I am telling you that, while in a perfect world I would have prefered Newt,Santorum or Cain, that Mitt Romney is absolutely a conservative.
Put another way, Reagan was a pretty average governor, and actually passed the (at it’s time) most pro-abortion law in the country. And look how that turned out.
Put yet another way, show me one issue where the current Romney is not a conservative. You may find a couple, but not many.
W
waanju
Guest
So now I’m distressed because apparently Romney is not really pro-life (according to certain people here). Is that true? Because his being pro-life is like the ONLY reason I’m voting for him (gay marriage too, but waaaaaay more about pro-life). Like somebody’s signature thing said, abortion will only end when Democratic Catholics decide that life is worth voting for someone they normally wouldn’t like much.
So now I’m like arrrrrgh.
So now I’m like arrrrrgh.
L
Luigi_Daniele
Guest
He picked Ryan, who has a 100% pro-life record. Romney ran as a pro-choicer as governor. Reagan actually governed as one. Romney did not.
Look, let’s put this down to pure politics. A Romney who goes soft on life, will absolutely not get re-elected. He knows that.
W
white_sheep
Guest
Romney answers the question “when is it ok to kill a baby?” with examples of when it is ok. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, he is not pro-life, no matter how he bills himself. He also believes embryonic stem cell research should continue to be allowed.
W
white_sheep
Guest
It just really doesn’t matter to me who anyone picks to fill the most pointless office in the country. VP’s are picked due to perceived political advantage and nothing more. It doesn’t change their policies.
L
Luigi_Daniele
Guest
Vote third party, then I guess.
I am not even mentioning voting for Obama, for obvious reasons.
L
Luigi_Daniele
Guest
This argument has been argued to death here, but we as Catholics are allowed to vote for the lesser of two evils.
I
iloveangels
Guest
Yes, you are correct, Luigi Daniele. When faced with a choice of two non-perfect alternatives, we are to choose the best one, obviously. Best also meaning least likely to cause moral harm–aka abortions, closing all the Catholic hospitals, food banks, schools and the like. The proper choice is very clear this election–more clear than I ever remember it being in my life. And I’ve been watching politics since Eisenhower.
According to the latest polls on the Senate and House races, the country is currently behaving much more like 2004 than 2008. This election is much tighter than the media wants you to think it is. And Obama probably doesn’t have the upper hand at this point, especially if he keeps acting like an angry doorstop on camera.
P
Phaedra777
Guest
V
Vangaurdian
Guest
Romney is not Pro-Life.
Never has been, never will be.
He claimed to have a “Pro-Life” conversion in 2004.
In 2006 he signed tax-payer funded abortion into law.
Romney is a tool for Goldman Sachs. Always has been, always will be.
nytimes.com/2012/01/28/us/politics/close-ties-to-goldman-enrich-romneys-public-and-private-lives.html
lifesitenews.com/news/the-u.s.-billionaires-funding-the-push-for-abortion-in-ireland/
Connect the dots folks.
I
iloveangels
Guest
Tomorrow morning I’ll wake up. And when I do I’ll know my day isn’t going to be perfect because I"m a sinner. And I think I’ll take Vanguadian’s advice, since he’s trying to be so persuasive. Since I can’t have a perfect day, I won’t choose the lesser of two evils because like him I will have erased all the differences between a really sinful day and a slightly sinful day, and called it all BAD. I just won’t get up. I’ll give up all hope, and that’ll be that.
What do you think of that?
[PS. Please don’t freak out and email the mods. I’m illustrating a point–not going to do this because it would be hopeless and silly.]
V
Vangaurdian
Guest
I think that someone who signs tax payer funded abortion into law is about as evil as a politician gets.
This election isn’t about “lesser of two evils”. They are both evil.
Waking up is the first step to fixing this problem.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Actually, Goldman Sachs has given $891k to Romney for this election. They were Obama’s second biggest contributor in 2008 at a little more than $1M (University of California was #1 in 2008 and 2012…I wonder why tuition is so expensive…).
opensecrets.org/pres12/index.php
The third party candidates would like to get that sort of money, but they won’t because people don’t contribute to candidates they know will lose. Connect the dots.
I
iloveangels
Guest
Vanguardian, if you feel taht way about evil, how do you face every day???
- Status