Perhaps the aide was a democrat who wormed his way in and felt his jig was soon up, or maybe he has been caught up in some internal power struggle, got upset over something and decided to hell with it. Just trying to make sense of something incredibly stupid.
Or maybe it's just a campaign which has had atrocious image control issues the whole of its existence.
And by "image control," I think we mean, "unable to distinguish self from crowd other than through a constant parade of gaffes and obliviousness."
Despite that it's working....kinda. Isn't Romney in the lead with delegates by a wide margin?
Think that's more a function of who he's running against than anything he's done.
Maybe I am not good with offensive humor, and this is going back a few pages, but I didn't even get DeNiro's joke
Everyone was questioning whether or not America was ready for a black president in 2008.
Ooooooh
I'm not sure what was so offensive about it. It was a sarcastic hark-back to 2008's, "Is America ready for a black president/first lady?" That was funny. I may have missed some context that made it seem like a dig on white people or on the candidate(s)' wife but I thought it was just a dig on the vaguely-racist joke from 4 years ago.
Maybe I am not good with offensive humor, and this is going back a few pages, but I didn't even get DeNiro's joke
Everyone was questioning whether or not America was ready for a black president in 2008.
Ooooooh
I'm not sure what was so offensive about it. It was a sarcastic hark-back to 2008's, "Is America ready for a black president/first lady?" That was funny. I may have missed some context that made it seem like a dig on white people or on the candidate(s)' wife but I thought it was just a dig on the vaguely-racist joke from 4 years ago.
Uh, it wasn't actually a joke; it was a very good question. I know I didn't think there was any way in hell he would carry Virginia, Ohio, or North Carolina.
The more I think about it the more I hate Mitt Romney's "4% GDP goes to military" plan. For one it flies in the face of all of his talk about "in a business you can't spend more than you take in" talk. Yeah, let's make huge increases in spending on an already huge part of the budget without weighing the potential benefit against anything else! That's a practical way to balance a budget. Second it's such a disingenuous framing. He finds the absolute biggest number he can, the national GDP and uses it in order to make his ridiculous level of spending seem small by comparison. 4% is so small you guys! It doesn't matter that I'm throwing billions of dollars away!
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
Maybe I am not good with offensive humor, and this is going back a few pages, but I didn't even get DeNiro's joke
Everyone was questioning whether or not America was ready for a black president in 2008.
Ooooooh
I'm not sure what was so offensive about it. It was a sarcastic hark-back to 2008's, "Is America ready for a black president/first lady?" That was funny. I may have missed some context that made it seem like a dig on white people or on the candidate(s)' wife but I thought it was just a dig on the vaguely-racist joke from 4 years ago.
They're blowing it out of proportion for 2 reasons 1) the base loves to hear it and 2) they think Eastwood sucks for supporting Obama in that recent advertisement.
Harry Dresden on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Maybe I am not good with offensive humor, and this is going back a few pages, but I didn't even get DeNiro's joke
Everyone was questioning whether or not America was ready for a black president in 2008.
Ooooooh
I'm not sure what was so offensive about it. It was a sarcastic hark-back to 2008's, "Is America ready for a black president/first lady?" That was funny. I may have missed some context that made it seem like a dig on white people or on the candidate(s)' wife but I thought it was just a dig on the vaguely-racist joke from 4 years ago.
They're blowing it out of proportion for 2 reasons 1) the base loves to hear it and 2) they think Eastwood sucks for supporting Obamareality in that recent advertisement.
Assuming you were talking about the Chevy ad from the Super Bowl. That was only pro Obama in the sense that his actions saved the auto industry and now it is actually profitable again.
Perhaps the aide was a democrat who wormed his way in and felt his jig was soon up, or maybe he has been caught up in some internal power struggle, got upset over something and decided to hell with it. Just trying to make sense of something incredibly stupid.
Or maybe it's just a campaign which has had atrocious image control issues the whole of its existence.
And by "image control," I think we mean, "unable to distinguish self from crowd other than through a constant parade of gaffes and obliviousness."
Despite that it's working....kinda. Isn't Romney in the lead with delegates by a wide margin?
Romney was always going to win. It was his turn. And look at the other candidates... Santorum and Gingrich are punchlines that haven't held office since they were cast out in disgrace years ago. Paul isn't even really running. Cain has never held office and may be a performance piece. Perry was probably the only one without a joke resume, and he couldn't get out of his own way. And he still might be the nominee in 4 years.
Let's say I give Obama some pretty sure things....
-the east coast minus NH + VT to DC,
-the west coast
-Illinois
-Hawaii
I give Romney
-Flyover from Texas to Dakotas to Idaho/WY to AZ minus CO, NM and NV (and not including IA in case there was ambiguity)
-the Confederacy minus NC, VA, FL + WV, KY TN
-AL
That's 209 Romney, 186 Obama. That's being somewhat generous and giving Romney Florida. Its early to look at polls but then you see
Maybe I am not good with offensive humor, and this is going back a few pages, but I didn't even get DeNiro's joke
Everyone was questioning whether or not America was ready for a black president in 2008.
Ooooooh
I'm not sure what was so offensive about it. It was a sarcastic hark-back to 2008's, "Is America ready for a black president/first lady?" That was funny. I may have missed some context that made it seem like a dig on white people or on the candidate(s)' wife but I thought it was just a dig on the vaguely-racist joke from 4 years ago.
They're blowing it out of proportion for 2 reasons 1) the base loves to hear it and 2) they think Eastwood sucks for supporting Obamareality in that recent advertisement.
Assuming you were talking about the Chevy ad from the Super Bowl. That was only pro Obama in the sense that his actions saved the auto industry and now it is actually profitable again.
I know. That's all it takes for the base to release the hounds on a target they consider pro-Obama. Yes, it was the Chevy ad I was referring to.
Maybe I am not good with offensive humor, and this is going back a few pages, but I didn't even get DeNiro's joke
Everyone was questioning whether or not America was ready for a black president in 2008.
Ooooooh
I'm not sure what was so offensive about it. It was a sarcastic hark-back to 2008's, "Is America ready for a black president/first lady?" That was funny. I may have missed some context that made it seem like a dig on white people or on the candidate(s)' wife but I thought it was just a dig on the vaguely-racist joke from 4 years ago.
They're blowing it out of proportion for 2 reasons 1) the base loves to hear it and 2) they think Eastwood sucks for supporting Obamareality in that recent advertisement.
Assuming you were talking about the Chevy ad from the Super Bowl. That was only pro Obama in the sense that his actions saved the auto industry and now it is actually profitable again.
I know. That's all it takes for the base to release the hounds on a target they consider pro-Obama. Yes, it was the Chevy ad I was referring to.
Maybe I am not good with offensive humor, and this is going back a few pages, but I didn't even get DeNiro's joke
Everyone was questioning whether or not America was ready for a black president in 2008.
Ooooooh
I'm not sure what was so offensive about it. It was a sarcastic hark-back to 2008's, "Is America ready for a black president/first lady?" That was funny. I may have missed some context that made it seem like a dig on white people or on the candidate(s)' wife but I thought it was just a dig on the vaguely-racist joke from 4 years ago.
They're blowing it out of proportion for 2 reasons 1) the base loves to hear it and 2) they think Eastwood sucks for supporting Obamareality in that recent advertisement.
Assuming you were talking about the Chevy ad from the Super Bowl. That was only pro Obama in the sense that his actions saved the auto industry and now it is actually profitable again.
I know. That's all it takes for the base to release the hounds on a target they consider pro-Obama. Yes, it was the Chevy ad I was referring to.
Figured, just clarifying for the universe.
That's okay. I couldn't remember what car company the ad was for, anyway.
Maybe I am not good with offensive humor, and this is going back a few pages, but I didn't even get DeNiro's joke
Everyone was questioning whether or not America was ready for a black president in 2008.
Ooooooh
I'm not sure what was so offensive about it. It was a sarcastic hark-back to 2008's, "Is America ready for a black president/first lady?" That was funny. I may have missed some context that made it seem like a dig on white people or on the candidate(s)' wife but I thought it was just a dig on the vaguely-racist joke from 4 years ago.
They're blowing it out of proportion for 2 reasons 1) the base loves to hear it and 2) they think Eastwood sucks for supporting Obamareality in that recent advertisement.
Assuming you were talking about the Chevy ad from the Super Bowl. That was only pro Obama in the sense that his actions saved the auto industry and now it is actually profitable again.
I know. That's all it takes for the base to release the hounds on a target they consider pro-Obama. Yes, it was the Chevy ad I was referring to.
Figured, just clarifying for the universe.
Which is actually pretty great. They pretty much went on record saying that Obama's actions saved the industry.
I'd say unless things change Obama wins with a comfortable, but not dramatic lead.
I'm not sure what crisis could actually tip it over to Romney as all the horrible things that are set to happen to us over the next several months are things that the Republicans did to us here or their policies being enacted in Europe (hellooooooooooooooo austerity) or things that the American people are on Obama's side on (Israel and Iran).
It's really Obama's race to lose at this point.
0
Options
Librarian's ghostLibrarian, Ghostbuster, and TimSporkRegistered Userregular
Hey now. We (Omaha) totally gave Obama an electoral vote in 2008. Don't throw us in with the rest of crazy ass Nebraska.
Michigan seems to elect Republican governors more often than not, except for Granholm. Snyder crushed Bernero in 2010, and that wasn't just because of the climate.
Rick Santorum played off of the Mitt Romney campaign’s Etch A Sketch gaffe today when he told an audience that the country might be better off with President Obama than with a candidate who will shift his positions with ease and who he believes is not very different from the president.
“You win by giving people a choice. You win by giving people the opportunity to see a different vision for our country, not someone who’s just going to be a little different than the person in there. If you’re going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk with what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate of the future,” Santorum told a crowd at USAA.
UPDATE: This afternoon, Romney issued a statement in response to Santorum’s comment:
“I am in this race to defeat Barack Obama and restore America’s promise. I was disappointed to hear that Rick Santorum would rather have Barack Obama as president than a Republican. This election is more important than any one person. It is about the future of America. Any of the Republicans running would be better than President Obama and his record of failure.”
Other than the governer they hate that they elected last election...
I think its incredibly unlikely for MI, MN, WI, or PA to go red but they'll be framed a "swing states." None have gone R since at least 1988. Iowa and NH I can buy as a legit swing states and even they have been Dem every year except 00 or 04 (in that time frame). To me its more about OH, FL, CO, VA.
Six of the last ten governors of California have been Republicans. Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts. Kathleen Sibelius was governor of Kansas.
Who a state will elect governor has little (if any) bearing on who they will vote for for Congress or the Presidency.
Perhaps the aide was a democrat who wormed his way in and felt his jig was soon up, or maybe he has been caught up in some internal power struggle, got upset over something and decided to hell with it. Just trying to make sense of something incredibly stupid.
Or maybe it's just a campaign which has had atrocious image control issues the whole of its existence.
And by "image control," I think we mean, "unable to distinguish self from crowd other than through a constant parade of gaffes and obliviousness."
Despite that it's working....kinda. Isn't Romney in the lead with delegates by a wide margin?
Romney was always going to win. It was his turn. And look at the other candidates... Santorum and Gingrich are punchlines that haven't held office since they were cast out in disgrace years ago. Paul isn't even really running. Cain has never held office and may be a performance piece. Perry was probably the only one without a joke resume, and he couldn't get out of his own way. And he still might be the nominee in 4 years.
Let's say I give Obama some pretty sure things....
-the east coast minus NH + VT to DC,
-the west coast
-Illinois
-Hawaii
I give Romney
-Flyover from Texas to Dakotas to Idaho/WY to AZ minus CO, NM and NV (and not including IA in case there was ambiguity)
-the Confederacy minus NC, VA, FL + WV, KY TN
-AL
That's 209 Romney, 186 Obama. That's being somewhat generous and giving Romney Florida. Its early to look at polls but then you see
I just don't really see where Romney picks up huge gains to get to 270.
The election is a long ways away, buy it's definitely uphill for Romney at this point. If the economy continues to pick up steam, I think it will be difficult for him to make the case that he could do a better job than Obama. Basically, if the recovery is working, I think most American's will be satisfied with the status quo. Now, if the economy starts to trend downward then all bets are off. Looking at the electoral map though, Romney has a serious challenge ahead of him. He has to win the mountain states (CO, NM, NV) and block Virgina and North Carolina. The path to victory (if he can't secure those traditionally red states) is difficult to see materialize.
Six of the last ten governors of California have been Republicans. Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts. Kathleen Sibelius was governor of Kansas.
Who a state will elect governor has little (if any) bearing on who they will vote for for Congress or the Presidency.
What's up with that? Are the Democrats running for governor there incompetent or something?
Six of the last ten governors of California have been Republicans. Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts. Kathleen Sibelius was governor of Kansas.
Who a state will elect governor has little (if any) bearing on who they will vote for for Congress or the Presidency.
What's up with that? Are the Democrats running for governor there incompetent or something?
Six of the last ten governors of California have been Republicans. Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts. Kathleen Sibelius was governor of Kansas.
Who a state will elect governor has little (if any) bearing on who they will vote for for Congress or the Presidency.
What's up with that? Are the Democrats running for governor there incompetent or something?
I reckon its cognitive dissonance between "local" Democrats and "national" Democrats.
MI is not even close. I fully expect the GOP to give up on it by late August, if not earlier. Still dominated by an expensive-ish media market that utterly loathes them. The Koch brothers might continue to blow some money (they already are), but even that might stop fairly early.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
All politics is local, really. It's easy for someone in a southern state to run as a more conservative Democrat, than say, New York. In fact, the nature of the local electorate demands it. The locality of the politics shapes the candidates and their platforms dramatically.
Six of the last ten governors of California have been Republicans. Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts. Kathleen Sibelius was governor of Kansas.
Who a state will elect governor has little (if any) bearing on who they will vote for for Congress or the Presidency.
What's up with that? Are the Democrats running for governor there incompetent or something?
I reckon its cognitive dissonance between "local" Democrats and "national" Democrats.
Also 10 governors ago was Earl (fucking) Warren, not exactly a right winger. They mostly just hate taxes out there and social issues don't come up much (thus the most dysfunctional state budget in the country).
Six of the last ten governors of California have been Republicans. Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts. Kathleen Sibelius was governor of Kansas.
Who a state will elect governor has little (if any) bearing on who they will vote for for Congress or the Presidency.
What's up with that? Are the Democrats running for governor there incompetent or something?
I reckon its cognitive dissonance between "local" Democrats and "national" Democrats.
As I recall, Garamendi did not get any support from the party when he ran against Schwarzenegger, so that's something.
I'd say unless things change Obama wins with a comfortable, but not dramatic lead.
I'm not sure what crisis could actually tip it over to Romney as all the horrible things that are set to happen to us over the next several months are things that the Republicans did to us here or their policies being enacted in Europe (hellooooooooooooooo austerity) or things that the American people are on Obama's side on (Israel and Iran).
It's really Obama's race to lose at this point.
The supreme court overturning the health care mandate would likely be a huge problem for Obama's campaign. If anything would actually ignite the conservative base, I think that would be it.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I'd say unless things change Obama wins with a comfortable, but not dramatic lead.
I'm not sure what crisis could actually tip it over to Romney as all the horrible things that are set to happen to us over the next several months are things that the Republicans did to us here or their policies being enacted in Europe (hellooooooooooooooo austerity) or things that the American people are on Obama's side on (Israel and Iran).
It's really Obama's race to lose at this point.
The supreme court overturning the health care mandate would likely be a huge problem for Obama's campaign. If anything would actually ignite the conservative base, I think that would be it.
Conversely it would also show the Democrat base how important it would be to protect the Supreme Court from the sorts of people Romney's liable to appoint.
Six of the last ten governors of California have been Republicans. Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts. Kathleen Sibelius was governor of Kansas.
Who a state will elect governor has little (if any) bearing on who they will vote for for Congress or the Presidency.
What's up with that? Are the Democrats running for governor there incompetent or something?
I reckon its cognitive dissonance between "local" Democrats and "national" Democrats.
As I recall, Garamendi did not get any support from the party when he ran against Schwarzenegger, so that's something.
Why didn't they support him?
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
Six of the last ten governors of California have been Republicans. Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts. Kathleen Sibelius was governor of Kansas.
Who a state will elect governor has little (if any) bearing on who they will vote for for Congress or the Presidency.
What's up with that? Are the Democrats running for governor there incompetent or something?
I reckon its cognitive dissonance between "local" Democrats and "national" Democrats.
As I recall, Garamendi did not get any support from the party when he ran against Schwarzenegger, so that's something.
Why didn't they support him?
Probably because there was no way the Terminator was not going to win the governorship.
Posts
Ooooooh
That's certainly true.
I'm not sure what was so offensive about it. It was a sarcastic hark-back to 2008's, "Is America ready for a black president/first lady?" That was funny. I may have missed some context that made it seem like a dig on white people or on the candidate(s)' wife but I thought it was just a dig on the vaguely-racist joke from 4 years ago.
They're blowing it out of proportion for 2 reasons 1) the base loves to hear it and 2) they think Eastwood sucks for supporting Obama in that recent advertisement.
Assuming you were talking about the Chevy ad from the Super Bowl. That was only pro Obama in the sense that his actions saved the auto industry and now it is actually profitable again.
Romney was always going to win. It was his turn. And look at the other candidates... Santorum and Gingrich are punchlines that haven't held office since they were cast out in disgrace years ago. Paul isn't even really running. Cain has never held office and may be a performance piece. Perry was probably the only one without a joke resume, and he couldn't get out of his own way. And he still might be the nominee in 4 years.
I've been playing with 270towin.com.
Let's say I give Obama some pretty sure things....
-the east coast minus NH + VT to DC,
-the west coast
-Illinois
-Hawaii
I give Romney
-Flyover from Texas to Dakotas to Idaho/WY to AZ minus CO, NM and NV (and not including IA in case there was ambiguity)
-the Confederacy minus NC, VA, FL + WV, KY TN
-AL
That's 209 Romney, 186 Obama. That's being somewhat generous and giving Romney Florida. Its early to look at polls but then you see
MI - Obama by double digits
PA - Obama by 5-10
OH - Obama mostly up substantially with one outlier
MN - double digits
WI - double digits
VA - Generally up somewhere around 10
NM - Obama up big in single poll
NV - up 6 in two most recent polls
CO - up single digits in stale polling
NH up 10 in only poll this calendar year
NC - tossup
IA - probably tossup?
MO - single digit Romney lead
I just don't really see where Romney picks up huge gains to get to 270.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I know. That's all it takes for the base to release the hounds on a target they consider pro-Obama. Yes, it was the Chevy ad I was referring to.
Can you share your 270 map? Or is the button not working for you either?
Figured, just clarifying for the universe.
Yes well, we are talking about a system where it's mathematically possible to win while carrying less than 30% of the popular vote.
That's okay. I couldn't remember what car company the ad was for, anyway.
http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=ifr
This would be what I see as the likely current state of the race:
http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=ifp
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Which is actually pretty great. They pretty much went on record saying that Obama's actions saved the industry.
When is the last time Michigan went Red?
Other than the governer they hate that they elected last election...
I'd say unless things change Obama wins with a comfortable, but not dramatic lead.
I'm not sure what crisis could actually tip it over to Romney as all the horrible things that are set to happen to us over the next several months are things that the Republicans did to us here or their policies being enacted in Europe (hellooooooooooooooo austerity) or things that the American people are on Obama's side on (Israel and Iran).
It's really Obama's race to lose at this point.
Yeah that seems logical. lol.
Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
1988.
I think its incredibly unlikely for MI, MN, WI, or PA to go red but they'll be framed a "swing states." None have gone R since at least 1988. Iowa and NH I can buy as a legit swing states and even they have been Dem every year except 00 or 04 (in that time frame). To me its more about OH, FL, CO, VA.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
keep on fuckin' that chicken.
Who a state will elect governor has little (if any) bearing on who they will vote for for Congress or the Presidency.
The election is a long ways away, buy it's definitely uphill for Romney at this point. If the economy continues to pick up steam, I think it will be difficult for him to make the case that he could do a better job than Obama. Basically, if the recovery is working, I think most American's will be satisfied with the status quo. Now, if the economy starts to trend downward then all bets are off. Looking at the electoral map though, Romney has a serious challenge ahead of him. He has to win the mountain states (CO, NM, NV) and block Virgina and North Carolina. The path to victory (if he can't secure those traditionally red states) is difficult to see materialize.
What's up with that? Are the Democrats running for governor there incompetent or something?
I reckon its cognitive dissonance between "local" Democrats and "national" Democrats.
Also 10 governors ago was Earl (fucking) Warren, not exactly a right winger. They mostly just hate taxes out there and social issues don't come up much (thus the most dysfunctional state budget in the country).
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
The supreme court overturning the health care mandate would likely be a huge problem for Obama's campaign. If anything would actually ignite the conservative base, I think that would be it.
Conversely it would also show the Democrat base how important it would be to protect the Supreme Court from the sorts of people Romney's liable to appoint.
Why didn't they support him?
Probably because there was no way the Terminator was not going to win the governorship.
You know, big movie actor, California....
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad